{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_30203/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_30203","id":"gutenberg_30203","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/30203","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Free thought"],"text":"FLOWERS OF FREETHOUGHT\n\n(SECOND SERIES)\n\n\nBy G. W. Foote\n\n\nLondon: B. Forder,\n\n28 Stonecutter Street, B.O.\n\n1884\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS:\n\n     PREFACE.\n     LUSCIOUS PIETY.\n     THE JEWISH SABBATH.\n     PROFESSOR STOKES ON IMMORTALITY.\n     PAUL BERT *\n     BRADLAUGH'S GHOST.\n     CHRIST AND BROTHERHOOD.\n     THE SONS OF GOD.\n     MELCHIZEDEK.\n     S'W'ELP ME GOD.\n     INFIDEL HOMES. *\n     ARE ATHEISTS CRUEL? *\n     ARE ATHEISTS WICKED?\n     RAIN DOCTORS.\n     PIOUS PUERILITIES.\n     \"THUS SAITH THE LORD.\"\n     BELIEVE OR BE DAMNED.\n     CHRISTIAN CHARITY.\n     RELIGION AND MONEY.\n     CLOTTED BOSH.\n     LORD BACON ON ATHEISM.\n     CHRISTIANITY AND SLAVERY. *\n     CHRIST UP TO DATE.\n     SECULARISM AND CHRISTIANITY.\n     ALTAR AND THRONE. *\n     MARTIN LUTHER.\n     THE PRAISE OF FOLLY.\n     HAPPY IN HELL.\n     THE ACT OF GOD.\n     KEIR HARDIE ON CHRIST.\n     BLESSED BE YE POOR.\n     CONVERTED INFIDELS.\n     MRS. BOOTH'S GHOST.\n     TALMAGE ON THE BIBLE.\n     MRS. BESANT ON DEATH AND AFTER.\n     THE POETS AND LIBERAL THEOLOGY. *\n     CHRISTIANITY AND LABOR. *\n     AN EASTER EGG FOR CHRISTIANS. *\n     DUELLING. *\n     DOWN AMONG THE DEAD MEN. *\n     SMIRCHING A HERO.\n     KIT MARLOWE AND JESUS CHRIST. *\n     JEHOVAH THE RIPPER. *\n     THE PARSONS' LIVING WAGE. *\n     DID BRADLAUGH BACKSLIDE? *\n     FREDERIC HARRISON ON ATHEISM. *\n     SAVE THE BIBLE! *\n     FORGIVE AND FORGET. *\n     THE STAR OF BETHLEHEM.\n     THE GREAT GHOSTS *\n     ATHEISM AND THE FRENCH REVOLUTION. *\n     PIGOTTISM. *\n     JESUS AT THE DERBY. *\n     ATHEIST MURDERERS. *\n     A RELIGION FOR EUNUCHS. *\n     ROSE-WATER RELIGION. *\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE.\n\nA little more than a year ago I put forth a collection of articles under\nthe title of _Flowers of Freethought_. The little volume met with a\nfavorable reception, and I now issue a Second Series. By a \"favorable\nreception\" I only mean that the volume found purchasers, and, it is to\nbe presumed, readers; which is, after all, the one thing a writer\nneeds to regard as of any real importance. Certainly the volume was not\npraised, nor recommended, nor even noticed, in the public journals. The\ntime is not yet ripe for the ordinary reviewers to so much as mention a\nbook of that character. Not that I charge the said reviewers with\nbeing concerned in a deliberate conspiracy of silence against such\nproductions. They have to earn their livings, and often very humbly,\ndespite the autocratic airs they give themselves; they serve under\neditors, who serve under proprietors, who in turn consult the tastes,\nthe intelligence, and the prejudices of their respective customers. And\nthus it is, I conceive, that thorough-going Freethought--at least\nif written in a popular style and published at a popular price--is\ngenerally treated with a silence, which, in some cases, is far from a\nsymptom of contempt.\n\nI am aware that my writing is sometimes objected to on grounds of\n\"taste.\" But it is a curious thing that this objection has invariably\nbeen raised by one of two classes of persons:--either those who are\nhostile to my opinions, and therefore unlikely to be impartial judges\nin this respect; or those who, while sharing my opinions, are fond of\ntemporising, and rather anxious to obtain the smiles---not to say the\nrewards--of Orthodoxy. The advice of the one class is suspicious; that\nof the other is contemptible.\n\nAs I said in the former Preface, I refrain from personalities, which\nis all that can be demanded of a fair controversialist. There are\nsentences, and perhaps passages, in this volume, that some people will\nnot like; but they are about things that _I_ do not like. A propagandist\nshould use his pen as a weapon rather than a fencing foil. At any\nrate, my style is my own; it is copied from no model, or set of models;\nalthough I confess to a predilection for the old forthright literature\nof England, before \"fine writing\" was invented, or \"parliamentary\"\neloquence came into vogue, or writers were anxious to propitiate an\nimaginary critic at their elbows--the composite ghost, as it were, of\nall the ignoramuses, prigs, bigots, fools, and cowards on this planet.\n\nIt only remains to say that the articles in this volume are of the same\ngeneral character as those in its predecessor. They were written at\ndifferent intervals during the past ten or twelve years. I have not\nattempted to classify them. In several instances I have appended\nthe date of first publication, as it seemed necessary, or at least\nconvenient.\n\nG. W. FOOTE\n\nJune, 1894.\n\n\n\n\nLUSCIOUS PIETY.\n\nLord Tennyson's poem, _Locksley Hall: Sixty Years After_, is severe on\nwhat he evidently regards as the pornographic tendency of our age.\n\n     \"Feed the budding rose of boyhood with the drainage of your sewer;\n     Send the drain into the fountain, lest the stream should issue pure.\n     Set the maiden fancies wallowing in the troughs of Zolaism,--\n     Forward, forward, ay and backward, downward too into the abysm.\"\n\nThere is some truth in this, but far more exaggeration. English novels,\nhowever they may trifle and sentimentalise with the passion of love,\nare as a rule exceedingly \"proper.\" For the most part, in fact, they\ndeliberately ignore all the unconventional aspects of that passion, and\nyou might read a thousand of their productions without suspecting, if\nyou did not already know the fact, that it had any connexion with our\nphysical nature. The men and women, youths and maidens, of Thackeray,\nDickens, and George Eliot, to say nothing of minor writers, are true\nenough to nature in other respects, but in all sexual relations they\nare mere simulacri. George Meredith is our only novelist who triumphs\nin this region. As Mr. Lowell has noticed, there is a fine natural\natmosphere of sex in his books. Without the obtrusion of physiology,\nwhich is out of place in art, his human beings are clearly divided\ninto males and females, thinking, feeling and acting according to their\nsexual characteristics. Other novelists simply shirk the whole problem\nof sex, and are satisfied with calling their personages John or Mary as\nthe one safe method of indicating to what gender they belong. This is\nhow the English public is pleased to have it; in this manner it feeds\nthe gross hypocrisy which is its constant bane. Hence the shock of\nsurprise, and even of disgust, felt by the ordinary Englishman when he\ntakes up a novel by a great French master of fiction, who thinks that\nArt, as well as Science, should deal frankly and courageously with every\ngreat problem of life. \"Shocking!\" cry the English when the veil of\nmystery is lifted. Yet the purism is only on the lips. We are not a whit\nmore virtuous than those plain-spoken foreigners; for, after all, facts\nexist, however we blink them, and ignorance and innocence are entirely\ndifferent things.\n\nThe great French masters of fiction do not write merely for boys and\ngirls. They believe that other literature is required besides that which\nis fit for bread-and-butter misses. Yet they are not therefore vicious.\nThey paint nature as it is, idealising without distorting, leaving the\nmoral to convey itself, as it inevitably will. As James Thomson said,\n\"Do you dread that the Satyr will be preferred to Hyperion, when both\nstand imaged in clear light before us?\"\n\nZolaism, or rather what Lord Tennyson means by the word--for _Nana_ is\na great and terrible book with all its vice--is not the chief danger to\nthe morals of English youth. Long before the majority of them learn to\nread French with ease, there is a book put into the hands of all for\nindiscriminate reading. It is the Bible. In the pages of that book they\nfind the lowest animal functions called by their vulgar names; frequent\nreferences, and sometimes very brutal ones, to the generative organs;\nand stories of lust, adultery, sodomy and incest, that might raise\nblushes in a brothel; while in the Song of Solomon they will find the\nmost passionate eroticism, decked out with the most voluptuous imagery.\nThe \"Zolaism\" of the Bible is far more pernicious than the \"Zolaism\"\nof French fiction. The one comes seductively, with an air of piety, and\nauthoritatively, with an air of divinity; while the other shows that\nselfishness and excess lead to demoralisation and death.\n\nThere is in fact, and all history attests it, a close connexion between\nreligion and sensuality. No student of human nature need be surprised at\nLouis XV. falling on his knees in prayer after debauching a young virgin\nin the _Parc aux Cerfs_. Nor is there anything abnormal in Count Cenci,\nin Shelley's play, soliciting God's aid in the pollution of his own\ndaughter. It is said that American camp-meetings often wound up in a\nsaturnalia. The Hallelujah lasses sing with especial fervor \"Safe in the\narms of Jesus.\" How many Christian maidens are moved by the promptings\nof their sexual nature when they adore the figure of their nearly naked\nSavior on a cross! The very nuns, who take vows of perpetual chastity,\nbecome spouses of Christ; and the hysterical fervor with which they\nfrequently worship their divine bridegroom, shows that when Nature is\nthrust out of the door she comes in at the window.\n\nCatholic books of devotion for the use of women and young people are\nalso full of thinly-veiled sensuality, and there are indications that\nthis abomination is spreading in the \"higher\" religious circles in\nProtestant England, where the loathsome confessional is being introduced\nin other than Catholic churches. Paul Bert, in his _Morale des\nJesuites_, gave a choice specimen of this class of literature, or rather\nsuch extracts as he dared publish in a volume bearing his honored name.\nIt is a prayer in rhyme extending to eleven pages, and occurs in a book\nby Father Huguet, designed for \"the dear daughters of Holy Mary.\" As\nPaul Bert says, \"every mother would fling it away with horror if Arthur\nwere substituted for Jesus.\" _Vive Jesus_ is the constant refrain\nof this pious song. We give a sample or two in French with a literal\nEnglish translation.\n\n     Vive Jesus, de qui l'amour Me va consumant unit et jour.\n     Vive Jesus, vive sa force, Vive son agreable amore.\n     Vive Jesus, quand il m'enivre D'un douceur qui me fait vivre.\n     Vive Jesus, lorsque sa bouche D'un baiser amoureux me touche.\n     Vive Jesus, grand il m'appelle Ma soeur, ma colombe, ma belle.\n     Vive Jesus, quand sa bonte, Me reduit dans la nudite;\n     Vive Jesns, quand ses blandices Me comblent de chastes delices.\n\n\"Live Jesus, whose love consumes me night and night.--Live Jesus,\nlive his force, live his agreeable attraction.--Live Jesus, when he\nintoxicates me with a sweetness that gives me life.--Live Jesus, when\nhis mouth touches me with an amorous kiss.--Live Jesus, when he calls\nme, my sister, my dove, my lovely one.--Live Jesus, when his good\npleasure reduces me to nudity; live Jesus, when his blandishments fill\nme with chaste delight.\"--And this erotic stuff is for the use of\ngirls!!\n\n\n\n\nTHE JEWISH SABBATH.\n\nDr. Edersheim's _Life of Jesus_ contains some interesting appendices on\nJewish beliefs and ceremonies. One of these deals with the Sabbath\nlaws of the chosen people, and we propose to cull from it a few curious\nillustrations of Jewish superstitions.\n\nThe Mishnic tractate _Sabbath_ stands at the head of twelve tractates on\nfestivals. Another tractate treats of \"commixtures,\" which are intended\nto make the Sabbath laws more bearable. The Jerusalem Talmud devotes\n64 folio columns, and the Babylon Talmud 156 double folio pages, to\nthe serious discussion of the most minute and senseless regulations. It\nwould be difficult to understand how any persons but maniacs or idiots\ncould have concocted such elaborate imbecilities, if we did not remember\nthat the priests of every religion have always bestowed their ability\nand leisure on matters of no earthly interest to anyone but themselves.\n\nTravelling on the Sabbath was strictly forbidden, except for a distance\nof two thousand cubits (1,000 yards) from one's residence. Yet if a\nman deposited food for two meals on the Friday at the boundary of that\n\"journey,\" the spot became his dwelling-place, and he might do another\ntwo thousand cubits, without incurring 'God's wrath. If a Jewish\ntraveller arrived at a place just as the Sabbath commenced, he could\nonly remove from his beasts of burden such objects as it was lawful to\nhandle on the Lord's Day. He might also loosen their gear and let them\ntumble down of themselves, but stabling them was out of all question.\n\nThe Rabbis exercised their ingenuity on what was the smallest weight\nthat constituted \"a burden.\" This was fixed at \"a dried fig,\" but it was\na moot point whether the law was violated if half a fig were carried\nat two different times on the same Sabbath. The standard measure for\nforbidden food was the size of an olive. If a man swallowed forbidden\nfood of the size of half an olive, and vomited it, and then ate another\npiece of the same size, he would be guilty because his palate had tasted\nfood to the prohibited degree.\n\nThrowing up an object, and catching it with the same hand was an\nundoubted sin; but it was a nice question whether he was guilty if he\ncaught it with, the other hand. Rain water might be caught and carried\naway, but if the rain had run down from a wall the act was sinful.\nOvertaken by the Sabbath with fruit in his hand, stretched out from\none \"place\" to another, the orthodox Jew would have to drop it, since\nshifting his full hand from one locality to another was carrying a\nburden.\n\nNothing could be killed on the Sabbath, not even insects. Speaking\nof the Christian monks, Jortin says that \"Some of them, out of\nmortification, would not catch or kill the vermin which devoured them;\nin which they far surpassed the Jews, who only spared them upon the\nSabbath day.\" This interesting fact is supported by the authority of\na Kabbi, who is quoted in Latin to the effect that cracking a flea and\nkilling a camel are equally guilty. Dr. Edersheim evidently refers to\nthe same authority in a footnote. On the whole this regulation against\nthe killing of vermin must have been very irksome, and if the fleas\nwere aware of it, they and the Jews must have had a lively time on\nthe Sabbath. We cannot ascertain whether the prohibition extended to\n_scratching_. If it did, curses not loud but deep must have ascended\nto the throne of the Eternal; and if, as Jesus says, every idle word is\nwritten down in the great book of heaven, the recording angel must have\nhad anything but a holiday on the day of rest.\n\nNo work was allowed on the Sabbath. Even roasting and baking had to\nbe stopped directly the holy period began, unless a crust was already\nformed, in which case the cooking might be finished. Nothing was to be\nsent, even by a heathen, unless it would reach its destination before\nthe Sabbath. Kabbi Gamaliel was careful to send his linen to the wash\nthree days before the Sabbath, so as to avoid anything that might lead\nto Sabbath labor.\n\nThe Sabbath lamp was supposed to have been ordained on Mount Sinai. To\nextinguish it was a breach of the Sabbath law, but it might be put out\nfrom fear of Gentiles, robbers, or evil spirits, or in order that\na person dangerously ill might go to sleep. Such concessions were\nobviously made by the Rabbis, as a means of accommodating their\nreligious laws to the absolute necessities of secular life. They\ncompensated themselves, however, by hinting that twofold guilt was\nincurred if, in blowing out one candle, its flame lit another.\n\nAccording to the Mosaic law, there was to be no fire on the Sabbath.\nFood might be kept warm, however, said the Rabbis, by wrapping it in\nnon-conductors. The sin to be avoided was _increasing_ the heat. Eggs\nmight not be cooked, even in sand heated by the sun, nor might hot water\nbe poured on cold. It was unlawful to put a vessel to catch the drops of\noil that might fall from the lamp, but one might be put there to catch\nthe sparks. Another concession to secular necessity! A father might also\ntake his child in his arms, even if the child held a stone, although it\nwas carrying things on the Sabbath; but this privilege was not yielded\nwithout a great deal of discussion.\n\nCare should be taken that no article of apparel was taken off and\ncarried. Fortunately Palestine is not a land of showers and sudden\nchanges of temperature, or the Rabbis would have had to discuss the\numbrella and overcoat question. Women were forbidden to wear necklaces,\nrings, or pins, on the Sabbath. Nose-rings are mentioned in the\nregulations, and the fact throws light on the social condition of the\ntimes. Women were also forbidden to look in the glass on the Sabbath,\nlest they should spy a white hair, and perform the sinful labor of\npulling it out. Shoes might not be scraped with a knife, except perhaps\nwith the back, but they might be touched up with oil or water. If a\nsandal tie broke on the Sabbath, the question of what should be done was\nso serious and profound that the Rabbis were never able to settle it.\nA plaster might be worn to keep a wound from getting worse, but not to\nmake it better. False teeth were absolutely prohibited, for they might\nfall out, and replacing them involved labor. Elderly persons with a full\nartificial set must have cut a sorry figure on the Sabbath, plump-faced\nMrs. Isaacs resolving herself periodically into a toothless hag.\n\nPlucking a blade of grass was sinful. Spitting in a handkerchief was\nallowed by one Rabbi, but the whole tribe were at loggerheads about\nspitting on the ground. Cutting one's hair or nails was a mortal sin.\nIn case of fire on the Sabbath, the utensils needed on that day might\nbe saved, and as much clothes as was absolutely necessary. This severe\nregulation was modified by a fiction. A man might put on a dress, save\nit, go back and put on another, and so on _ad infinitum_. Watering the\ncattle might be done by the Gentile, like lighting a lamp, the fiction\nbeing that he did it for himself and not for the Jew.\n\nAssistance might be given to an animal about to have young, or to a\nwoman in childbirth--which are further concessions to property\nand humanity. All might be done on the Sabbath, too, needful for\ncircumcision. On the other hand, bones might not be set, nor emetics\ngiven, nor any medical or surgical operation performed. Wine, oil, and\nbread might be borrowed, however, and one's upper garment left in pledge\nfor it. No doubt it was found impossible to keep the Jews absolutely\nfrom pawnbroking even on the Sabbath, Another concession was made for\nthe dead. Their bodies might be laid out, washed, and anointed. Priests\nof every creed are obliged to give way on such points, or life would\nbecome intolerable, and their victims would revolt in sheer despair.\n\nNature knew nothing of the Jewish laws, and hens had the perversity to\nlay eggs on the Sabbath. Such eggs were unlawful eating; yet if the hen\nhad been kept, not for laying but for fattening, the egg might be eaten\nas a part of her economy that had accidentally fallen off!\n\nSuch were the puerilities of the Sabbath Law among the Jews. The Old\nTestament is directly responsible for all of them. It laid down the\nbasic principle, and the Rabbis simply developed it, with as much\nnatural logic as a tree grows up from its roots. Our Sabbatarians of\nto-day are slaves to the ignorance and follies of the semi-barbarous\ninhabitants of ancient Palestine; men who believed that God had\nposteriors, and exhibited them; men who kept slaves and harems; men\nwho were notorious for their superstition, their bigotry, and their\nfanaticism; men who believed that the infinite God rested after six\ndays' work, and ordered all his creatures to regard the day on which he\nrecruited his strength as holy. Surely it is time to fling aside their\nantiquated rubbish, and arrange our periods of rest and recreation\naccording to the dictates of science and common sense.\n\nThe origin of a periodical day of rest from labor is simple and natural.\nIt has everywhere been placed under the sanction of religion, but it\narose from secular necessity. In the nomadic state, when men had little\nto do at ordinary times except watching their flocks and herds, the days\npassed in monotonous succession. Life was never laborious, and as human\nenergies were not taxed there was no need for a period of recuperation,\nWe may therefore rest assured that no Sabbatarian law was ever given\nby Moses to the Jews in the wilderness. Such a law first appears in\na higher stage of civilisation. When nomadic tribes settle down to\nagriculture and are welded into nations, chiefly by defensive war\nagainst predatory barbarians; above all, when slavery is introduced and\nmasses of men are compelled to build and manufacture; the ruling and\npropertied classes soon perceive that a day of rest is absolutely\nrequisite. Without it the laborer wears out too rapidly--like the\nhorse, the ox, or any other beast of burden. The day is therefore\ndecreed for economic reasons. It is only placed under the sanction of\nreligion because, in a certain stage of human development, there is no\nother sanction available. Every change in social organisation has then\nto be enforced as an edict of the gods. This is carried out by the\npriests, who have unquestioned authority over the multitude, and who,\nso long as their own privileges and emoluments are secured, are always\nready to guard the interest of the temporal powers.\n\nSuch was the origin of the day of rest in Egypt, Assyria, and elsewhere.\nBut it was lost sight of in the course of time, even by the ruling\nclasses themselves; and the theological fiction of a divine ordinance\nbecame the universally accepted explanation. This fiction is still\ncurrent in Christendom. We are gravely asked to believe that men would\nwork themselves to death, and civilised nations commit economical\nsuicide, if they were not taught that a day of rest was commanded by\nJehovah amidst the lightnings and thunders of Sinai. In the same way,\nwe are asked to believe that theft and murder would be popular pastimes\nwithout the restraints of the supernatural decalogue fabled to have\nbeen received by Moses. As a matter of fact, the law against theft arose\nbecause men object to be robbed, and the law against murder because they\nobject to be assassinated. Superstition does not invent social laws; it\nmerely throws around them the glamor of a supernatural authority.\n\nPriests have a manifest interest in maintaining this glamor. Accordingly\nwe find that Nonconformists as well as Churchmen claim the day of rest\nas the Lord's Day--although its very name of Sunday betrays its Pagan\norigin. It is not merely a day of rest, they tell us; it is also a day\nof devotion. Labor is to be laid aside in order that the people may\nworship God. The physical benefit of the institution is not denied; on\nthe contrary, now that Democracy is decisively triumphing, the people\nare assured that Sunday can only be maintained under a religious\nsanction. In other words, religion and priests are as indispensable as\never to the welfare of mankind.\n\nThis theological fiction should be peremptorily dismissed. Whatever\nservice it once rendered has been counterbalanced by its mischiefs. The\nrude laborer of former times--the slave or the serf--only wanted rest\nfrom toil. He had no conception of anything higher. But circumstances\nhave changed. The laborer of to-day aspires to share in the highest\nblessings of civilisation. His hours of daily work are shortened. The\nrest he requires he can obtain in bed. What he needs on Sunday is not\n_rest_, but _change_; true re-creation of his nature; and this is denied\nhim by the laws that are based upon the very theological fiction which\nis pretended to be his most faithful friend.\n\nThe working classes at present are simply humbugged by the Churches. The\nday of rest is secure enough without lies or fictions. What the masses\nwant is an opportunity to make use of it. Now this cannot be done if\nall rest on the same day. A minority must work on Sunday, and take their\nrest on some other day of the week. And really, when the nonsensical\nsolemnity of Sunday is gone, any other day would be equally eligible.\n\nParsons work on Sunday; so do their servants, and all who are engaged\nabout their gospel-shops. Why should it be so hard then for a railway\nservant, a museum attendant, an art-gallery curator, or a librarian to\nwork on Sunday? Let them rest some other day of the week as the parson\ndoes. They would be happy if they could have his \"off days\" even at the\nprice of \"Sunday labor.\"\n\nChurches and chapels do not attract so many people as they did. There is\nevery reason why priestly Protective laws should be broken down. It is a\npoor alternative to offer a working man--the church or the public-house;\nand they are now trying to shut the public-house and make it church or\nnothing. Other people should be consulted as well as mystery-men and\ntheir followers. Let us have freedom. Let the dwellers in crowded city\nstreets, who work all day in close factories, be taken at cheap rates to\nthe country or the seaside. Let them see the grand sweep of the sky.\nLet them feel the spring of the turf under their feet. Let them look out\nover the sea--the highway between continents---and take something of its\npower and poetry into their blood and brain. During the winter, or\nin summer if they feel inclined, let them visit the institutions of\nculture, behold the beautiful works of dead artists, study the relics of\ndead generations, feel the links that bind the past to the present, and\nimagine the links that will bind the present to the future. Let their\npulses be stirred with noble music. Let the Sunday be their great day\nof freedom, culture, and humanity. As \"God's Day\" it is wasted. We must\nrescue it from the priests and make it \"Man's Day.\"\n\n\n\n\nPROFESSOR STOKES ON IMMORTALITY.\n\nThe orthodox world makes much of Sir G. G. Stokes, baronet, M.P., and\nPresident of the Royal Society. It is so grateful to find a scientific\nman who is naively a Christian. Many of the species are avowed, or,\nat any rate, strongly suspected unbelievers; while others, who make a\nprofession of Christianity, are careful to explain that they hold\nit with certain reservations, being Christians in general, but not\nChristians in particular. Sir G. G. Stokes, however, is as orthodox as\nany conventicle could desire. Perhaps it was for this reason that he was\nselected to deliver one of the courses of Gilford Lectures. He would\nbe a sort of set-off against the rationalism of Max Muller and the\nscepticism of Tylor. What other reason, indeed, could have inspired\nhis selection? He has not the slightest reputation as a theologian or\nphilosopher, and one of the leading reviews, in noticing his Clifford\nLectures, expresses a mild but decided wonder at his appearing in such a\ncharacter.\n\nLet the Gifford Lectures, however, pass--for the present. We propose to\ndeal with an earlier effort of Sir G. G. Stokes. Nearly two years ago\nhe delivered a lecture at the Finsbury Polytechnic on the Immortality of\nthe Soul. It was reported in the _Family Churchman_, and reprinted after\nrevision as a twopenny pamphlet, with the first title of \"I.\" This is\nthe only pointed thing about it. The lecture is about \"I,\" or, as Sir G.\nG. Stokes, might say, \"All my I.\"\n\nSir G. G. Stokes begins by promising to confine himself to the question,\n\"What is it that personal identity depends upon and consists in?\" But\nhe does not fulfil the promise. After some jejune remarks upon this\nquestion he drops into theology and winds up with a little sermon.\n\n\"I cannot pretend that I am able to answer that question myself,\" says\nSir G. G. Stokes. Why, then, did he not leave it alone? \"But I will\nendeavor,\" he says, \"to place before you some thoughts bearing in that\ndirection which I have found helpful to myself, and which possibly may\nbe of some help to some of you.\"\n\nSir G. G. Stokes does not mention David Hume, but that great thinker\npointed out, with his habitual force and clearness, that personal\nidentity depends upon memory. Our scientific lecturer, with the\ntheological twist, says it \"involves memory,\" which implies a certain\nreservation. Yet he abstains from elucidating the point; and as it is\nthe most important one in the discussion, he must be held guilty of\nshort-sightedness or timidity.\n\nMemory involves thought, says Sir G. G. Stokes. This is true; in fact,\nit is a truism. And what, he asks, does thought depend on? \"To a certain\nextent\" he allows that it \"depends upon the condition of the brain.\" But\nduring the present life, at any rate, it depends _absolutely_ on the\ncondition of the brain Look at the head of an idiot, and then at the\nhead of Shakespeare; is not the brain difference the obvious cause of\nthe mental difference? Are there not diseases of the brain that affect\nthought in a definite manner? Is not thought excited by stimulants, and\ndeadened or even annihilated by narcotics? Is it not entirely suspended\nin healthy sleep? Will not a man of genius become an imbecile if his\nbrain softens? Will not a philosopher rave like a drunken fishfag if he\nsuffers from brain inflammation? Is not thought most vigorous when\nthe brain is mature? And is it not weakest in the first and second\nchildishness of youth and old age?\n\nThe dependence of thought on the brain is so obvious, it is so\ndemonstrable by the logical methods of difference and concomitant\nvariations, that whoever disputes it, or only allows it \"to a certain\nextent,\" is bound to assign another definite cause. A _definite_\ncause, we say; not a fanciful or speculative one, which is perfectly\nhypothetical.\n\nSir G. G. Stokes does not do this. He tries to make good his reservation\nby a negative criticism of \"the materialistic hypothesis.\" He takes the\ncase of a man who, while going up a ladder and speaking, was knocked\non the head by a falling brickbat. For two days he was unconscious, and\n\"when he came to, he completed the sentence that he had been speaking\nwhen he was struck.\" Now, at first sight, this seems a strong\nconfirmation of \"the materialistic hypothesis.\" A shock to the brain\nstopped its action and suspended consciousness. Automatic animal\nfunctions went on, but there was no perception, thought, or feeling.\n\nWhen the effects of the shock wore off the brain resumed its action, and\nbegan at the very point where it left off. But this last circumstance\nis seized by Sir G. G. Stokes as \"a difficulty.\" _Some_ change must have\ngone on, he says, during the two days the man lay unconscious; there\nmust have been _some_ waste of tissues, _some_ change in the brain; yet\n\"there is no trace of this change in the joining together of the thought\nafter the interval of unconsciousness with the thought before.\"\n\nOur reply is a simple one. In the first place, Sir G. G. Stokes is\nmaking much of a single fact, which he has not weighed, in despite of a\nhost of other facts, not in the least questionable, and all pointing in\none direction. In the second place, he does not tell us _what_ change\nwent on in the man's brain. May it not have been, at least with respect\nto the cerebrum, quite infinitesimal? In the third place, Sir G.\nG. Stokes should be aware that all brain changes do not affect\nconsciousness, even in the normal state. Lastly, consciousness depends\nupon perception; and if all the avenues of sensation were closed, and\nthe alteration of brain tissues were exceedingly slight (as it would be\nif the brain were not working), it is nothing very extraordinary that\nthe man should resume thought and volition at the point where they\nceased.\n\nThe second \"difficulty\" raised, rather than discovered, by Sir G. G.\nStokes is this. \"I am conscious of a power which I call will,\" he says,\n\"and when I hold up my hand I can choose whether I shall move it to the\nright or to the left.\"\n\n\"Now, according to the materialistic hypothesis, everything about me is\ndetermined simply by the ponderable molecules which constitute my body\nacting simply and solely according to the very same laws according to\nwhich matter destitute of life might act. Well then, if we follow up\nthis supposition to its full extent, we are obliged to suppose that,\nwhether I move at this particular moment of time--4.25, on the 30th of\nMarch--my hand to the right or to the left, was determined by something\ninevitable, something which could not have been otherwise, and must have\ncome down, in fact, from my ancestors.\"\n\nNow Sir G. G. Stokes \"confesses\" that this seems to him to \"fly\ncompletely in the face of common sense.\" And so it does, if by\n\"determined\" he means that _somebody_ settled the whole business, down\nto the minutest details, a thousand, a million, or a thousand million\nyears ago. But if \"determined\" simply means that every phenomenon\nis _caused_, in the philosophical--not the theological or\nmetaphysical--meaning of the word, it does not fly in the face of common\nsense at all. Little as Sir G. G. Stokes may like it, he _does_--body\nand brain, thought and feeling, volition and taste--come down from his\nancestors. That is the reason why he is an Englishman, a Whig, a bit of\na Philistine, an orthodox Christian, and a very indifferent reasoner.\n\nAfter all, does not this objection come with an ill grace from a\nChristian Theist? Has Sir G. G. Stokes never read St. Paul? Has he\nnever heard of John Calvin and Martin Luther? Has he never read the\nThirty-nine Articles of his own Church? All those authorities teach\npredestination; which, indeed, logically follows the doctrine of an\nall-wise and all-powerful God. Yet here is Sir G. G. Stokes, a Church of\nEngland man, objecting to the \"materialistic hypothesis\" on the ground\nthat it makes things \"determined.\"\n\nProfessor Stokes next refers to \"something about us\" which we call\n\"will.\" This he proceeds to treat as an independent force like magnetism\nor electricity. What he says about it shows him to be a perfect tyro\nin psychology. At the end of the section he exclaims, \"So much for that\ntheory\"--the materialistic hypothesis; and we are tempted to exclaim,\n\"So much for Sir G. G. Stokes.\"\n\nNext comes the \"psychic theory,\" according to which \"man consists of\nbody and soul.\" Here the Professor shows a lucid interval. He points out\nthat if the soul is really hampered by the body, it is strange that a\nblow on a man's head should \"retard the action of his thoughts.\" He also\nremarks that, according to this theory, the \"blow has only got to be\nsomewhat harder till the head is smashed altogether, and the man is\nkilled, and then the thoughts are rendered more active than ever.\"\nWhich, as our old friend Euclid observes, is absurd.\n\nProfessor Stokes dismisses the \"body and soul\" theory as \"open to very\ngrave objections.\" He admits that it is held by \"many persons belonging\nto the religious world,\" nevertheless he does not think it can be\n\"deduced from Scripture,\" to which he goes on to appeal.\n\nNow we beg our Christian friends to notice this. Here is the great Sir\nG. Gr. Stokes they make so much of actually throwing up the sponge.\nInstead of showing _scientifically_ that man has a soul, and thus\ncheering their drooping spirits, he leaves the platform, mounts the\npulpit, and plays the part of a theologian. In fact he can tell them no\nmore than the ordinary parson who sticks his nose between the pages of\nhis Bible.\n\nWith regard to the Scripture, it will afford very little comfort to\nthe Christians to know that Professor Stokes does not believe that it\nteaches the immortality of the soul. He supports this view by citing\nthe authority of the present Bishop of Durham and \"another bishop,\" who\nregard the doctrine of an immortal soul as no part of a Christian faith.\nHad Sir G. G. Stokes been better read in the literature of his own\nChurch, he might have adduced a number of other divines, including\nBishop Courtenay and Archbishop Whately, who took the same position.\n\n\"Well, what do we learn from Scripture?\" inquires Professor Stokes.\nAnd this is his answer. \"In scripture,\" he says, \"man is spoken of\nas consisting of body, soul, and spirit.\" And in Sir G. G. Stokes's\nopinion it is the third article which \"lies at the very basis of life.\"\nIt is _spirit_, \"the interaction of which with the material organism\nproduced a living being\" in the Garden of Eden.\n\nHere we pause to interject a reflection. Ordinary Christians believe in\nbody and soul; Professor Stokes believes in body, soul, and spirit.\nThat is, he says man is made up of three instead of two. But in step\nour Theosophic friends, who pile on four more, and tell us that man is\nsevenfold. Now who is right! According to their own account they\nare _all_ right. But this is impossible. In our opinion they are all\n_wrong_. Their theories are imaginary. All they _know_ anything of is\nthe human body.\n\nBut to return to Professor Stokes's excursion in the region of Biblical\nexegesis. Never have we met with anything more puerile and absurd. He\nfinds \"soul\" and \"spirit\" in the English Bible, and he supposes them\nto be different things. He even builds up a fanciful theory on the fact\nthat the expression \"living soul\" occurs in the New Testament, but he\ndoes not remember the expression \"living spirit.\" Hence he concludes\nthat _spirit_ is not \"living\" but \"life-making.\"\n\nSurely a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and Professor Stokes is\na capital illustration of this truth. We get \"soul\" and \"spirit\" in the\nNew Testament, as well as in the Old, simply because both words are used\nindifferently by the English translators. This is owing to the composite\ncharacter of the English language. One word comes from the Greek, the\nother from the Latin, and both mean exactly the same thing. The Hebrew\n_ruach_, the (Greek _pneuma_), and the Latin _spiritus_, all originally\nmeant _the breath_; and as breathing was the most obvious function of\nlife, persisting even in the deepest sleep, it came to signify _life_,\nwhen that general conception was reached; and when the idea of soul or\nspirit was reached, the same word was used to denote it. All this is\nshown clearly enough by Tylor, and is corroborated by the more orthodox\nMax Muller; so that Professor Stokes has fallen into a quagmire, made\nof the dirt of ignorance and a little water of knowledge, and has made\nhimself a laughing-stock to everyone who possesses a decent acquaintance\nwith the subject.\n\nWhatever it is that Professor Stokes thinks a man has apart from his\nbody, he does not believe it to be immortal. The immortality of the soul\nand a future life, he says, are \"two totally different things.\" The one\nhe thinks \"incorrect,\" the other he regards as guaranteed by Scripture;\nin other words, by Paul, who begins his exposition by exclaiming \"Thou\nfool!\" and ends it by showing his own folly. The apostle's nonsense\nabout the seed that cannot quicken unless it die, was laughed at by the\nAfrican chief in Sir Samuel Baker's narrative. The unsophisticated negro\nsaid that if the seed did die it would never come to anything. And he\nwas right, and Paul was wrong.\n\nThere _is_ a resurrection, however, for Paul says so, and his teaching\nis inspired, though his logic is faulty. Men will rise from the dead\n_somehow_, and with \"a body of some kind.\" Not the body we have now.\nOh dear no! Great men have thought so, but it is an \"incredible\nsupposition.\" Being a chemist, Sir G. G. Stokes sees the ineffable\nabsurdity, the physical and logical impossibility, of this orthodox\nconception, which was taught by Mr. Spurgeon without the slightest\nmisgiving, and upheld by the teaching of the Church of England.\n\nBut what is it that _will_ rise from the dead, and get joined with\nsome sort of inconceivable body? We have shown that Professor Stokes's\ndistinction between \"soul\" and \"spirit\" is fanciful. It will not do for\nhim, then, to say it is the \"spirit\" that will rise, for he denies,\nor does not believe, the renewed life of the \"soul.\" Here he leaves us\ntotally in the dark. Perhaps what will rise is \"a sort of a something\"\nthat will get joined to \"a sort of a body\" and live in \"a sort of a\nsomewhere.\"\n\n\"What,\" asks Professor Stokes, \"is man's condition between death and the\nresurrection?\" He admits that the teaching of Scripture on this point is\n\"exceedingly meagre.\" He inclines to think that \"the intermediate state\nis one of unconsciousness,\" something like when we faint, and thus, as\nthere will be no perceptions in the interval, though it be millions of\nyears, we shall, \"when we breathe our last,\" be brought \"immediately\nface to face with our final account to receive our final destiny.\"\nAnd if our final destiny depends in any way on how we have used our\nreasoning powers, Professor Stokes will be consigned to a warm corner in\nan excessively high-temperatured establishment.\n\nAfter all, Professor Stokes admits that all he has said, or can say,\ngives no \"evidence\" of a future life. What _is_ the evidence then?\n\"Well,\" he says, \"the great evidence which we as Christians accept is,\nthat there is One Who has passed already before us from the one state of\nbeing to the other.\" The resurrection of Jesus Christ, he tells us, is\n\"an historical event,\" and is supported by an enormous amount of most\nweighty evidence. But he does not give us a single ounce of it. The only\nargument he has for a future state is advanced on the last page, and he\nretires at the moment he has an opportunity of proving his case.\n\nProfessor Stokes says: \"I fear I have occupied your time too long. We\nfear so too.\" \"These are dark subjects,\" he adds. True, and he has not\nilluminated them. There is positively no evidence of a future life. The\nbelief is a conjecture, and we must die to prove or disprove it.\n\n\n\n\nPAUL BERT *\n\nVictor Hugo and Gambetta have their places in the Pantheon of history,\nand Death is beginning his harvest among the second rank of the founders\nof the present French Republic, Every one of these men was an earnest\nFreethinker as well as a staunch Republican. Paul Bert, who has just\ndied at Tonquin at the post of duty, was one of the band of patriots\nwho gathered round Gambetta in his Titanic organisation of the National\nDefence; a band from which has come most of those who have since been\ndistinguished in the public life of France. After the close of the war,\nPaul Bert became a member of the National Assembly, in which he has\nheld his seat through all political changes. As a man of science he was\neminent and far-shining, being not a mere _doctrinaire_ but a practical\nexperimentalist whose researches were of the highest interest and\nimportance. His _Manual of Elementary Science_, which has been recently\ntranslated into English, is in use in nearly every French school, and\nthere is no other volume of the kind that can be compared with it for\na moment. As a friend and promoter of general education, Paul Bert was\nwithout a rival. He strove in season and out of season to raise the\nstandard of instruction, to elevate the status of teachers, and to free\nthem from the galling tyranny of priests. It is not too much to say\nthat Paul Bert was the idol of nine-tenths of the schoolmasters and\nschoolmistresses in the French rural districts, where the evils he\nhelped to remove had been most rampant.\n\n     * November 21, 1886.\n\nThis distinguished Frenchman is now dead at the comparatively early age\nof fifty-three. Although his illness was so serious, the French premier\ntelegraphed that it would be impolitic for the Resident General to leave\nTonquin suddenly. Thereupon Paul Bert replied, \"You are right; it is\nbetter to die at my post than for me to quit Tonquin at the present\nmoment.\" That dispatch was the last he was able to send himself.\nSubsequent dispatches came, from other hands, and at last the news\narrived that Paul Bert was dead. The French premier announced the fact\nfrom the Tribune in a broken voice and amid profound silence. \"The\nChamber loses in him,\" said M. de Freycinet, \"one of its eminent\nmembers, science an illustrious representative, France one of her\nmost devoted children.\" The next day the Chamber, by an overwhelming\nmajority, voted a State funeral and a pension of \u00a3400 a year to Mdme.\nBert, with reversion to her children. The first vote was strenuously\nopposed by Monseigneur Freppel, Bishop of Angers, on the ground that\nthe deceased was an inveterate enemy of religion, but the bishop was\nignominiously defeated by 379 votes against 45. That is probably a fair\ntest of the relative strength of Freethought and Christianity among\neducated men in France.\n\nMonseigneur Freppel was right Paul Bert was an inveterate enemy of\nreligion. He was a militant Atheist, who believed that the highest\nservice you can render to mankind is to free them from superstition. No\nwonder the Church hated him. At a famous banquet he proposed the toast,\n\"The eradication of the two phylloxeras--the phylloxera of the vine\nand the phylloxera of the Church.\" His handbook on the Morality of\nthe Jesuits was a frightful exposure of the duplicity and rascality of\npriestcraft. About twelve months before Grambetta's death, that great\nstatesman took the chair at one of Paul Bert's atheistical lectures. It\nwas a bold thing to do, but Gambetta was a bold man. The great statesman\ndid a bolder thing still when he took office. He scandalised the\nChristian world by appointing his atheistic friend Paul Bert as Minister\nof Public Instruction and Public Worship. Surely this was a piece\nof irony worthy the assiduous student of Rabelais and Voltaire.\n\"Clericalism is the enemy,\" said Gambetta. Paul Bert accepted the\nbattle-cry, but he did not content himself with shouting. He labored to\nplace education on a basis which would make it a citadel of Freethought.\nThe Tory _Standard_ allows that he \"laid the bases of military education\nin the schools and _lycees_\" that he \"first dispensed the pupils in\nState educational establishments from the obligation of attending\nany religious service, or belonging to any class in which religious\ninstruction was given,\" and that he first organised the higher education\nof girls.\n\nPaul Bert was a typical Frenchman and an illustrious Atheist. What do\nthe clergy make of this phenomenon? Here is a man, trained by his\nfather to hate priests, brought up from his cradle in an atmosphere of\nFreethought, and owing nothing to the Church; yet he becomes an\neminent scientist, a fervid patriot, an educational reformer, a leading\nstatesman, a tender husband and father, and a warm friend of the best\nmen, of his time; and on his decease the State gives him a public\nfuneral and provides for his widow and children. The man, we repeat, was\nan open, nay a militant Atheist; and again we ask, What do the clergy\nmake of this phenomenon?\n\nDuring his lifetime Darwin was the _bete noir_ of the clergy. They hated\nhim with a perfect and very natural hatred, for his scientific doctrines\nwere revolutionary, and if he was right they and their Bible were\ncertainly wrong. The Black Army denounced his impious teachings from\nthousands of pulpits. With some of them he was the Great Beast, with\nothers Antichrist himself. And they were all the madder because he never\ntook the slightest notice of them, but treated them with the silent\ncontempt which a master of the hounds bestows on the village curs\nwho bark at his horse's heels. Yet, strange to say, when Darwin died,\ninstead of being buried in some quiet Kentish cemetery or churchyard, he\nwas actually sepulchred in Westminster Abbey. Having fought the living\nDarwin tooth and nail, the clergy quietly appropriated the dead Darwin.\nThe living, thinking and working man was a damnable heretic, hated of\nGod and his priests, but his corpse was a very good Christian, and it\nwas buried in a temple of the very faith he had undermined. Darwin, with\nall his gravity, is said to have loved a joke, and really this was so\ngood a joke that he might almost have grinned at it in his coffin.\n\nBy and bye, the great naturalist may figure as an ardent devotee of the\ncreed he rejected. The clergy are hypocritical and base enough--as a\nbody we mean--to claim Darwin himself now they have secured his corpse.\nWho knows that, in another twenty years, the verger or even the Dean of\nWestminster Abbey, in showing visitors through the place, may not say\nbefore a certain tomb, \"Here is the last resting-place of that eminent\nChristian, Charles Darwin. There was a little misunderstanding between\nhim and the clergy while he lived, but it has all passed away like a\nmist, and he is now accounted one of the chief pillars of the Church\"?\n\nWhat the clergy have done in the concrete with Darwin they have done in\nthe abstract with his predecessors in the great struggle between light\nand darkness. What are all the lying stories about Infidel Death-Beds\nbut conversions of corpses? Great heretics, whose scepticism was\nunshaken in their lifetime by all the parson-power of the age, were\neasily converted in their tombs. What the clergy said about them was\ntrue, or why didn't they get up and contradict? All the world over\nsilence gives consent, and if the dead man did not enter a _caveat_, who\ncould complain if the men of God declared that he finished up in their\nfaith?\n\nRecently the clergy have been converting another corpse, but this time\nit has been able to protest by proxy, and the swindle has been exposed\nall along the line. Paul Bert, the great French Freethinker, died at\nTonquin. The nation voted him a state funeral, and his body was\nshipped to France. The voyage was a long one, and it gave the pious\nan opportunity of leisurely converting the corpse, especially as Paul\nBert's family were all on board the steamer. Accordingly a report, which\nwe printed and commented on at the time, appeared in all the papers that\nthe atheistic Resident General had sent for a Catholic bishop on his\ndeath-bed and taken the sacrament. Thousands of Christians believed the\nstory at once, the wish being father to the thought. They never stopped\nto inquire whether the report was true. Why indeed should they? They\ntook the whole of their religion on trust, and of course they could\neasily dispense with proof in so small a matter as an infidel's\nconversion. Some of them were quite hilarious. \"Ha,\" they exclaimed,\n\"what do you Freethinkers say now?\" And with the childish simplicity of\ntheir kind, when they were told that the story was in all probability\nfalse, they replied, \"Why, isn't it in print?\"\n\nNow that the fraud is exposed very few of the journals that printed it\nwill publish the contradiction. We may be sure that the story of Paul\nBert's conversion will be devoutly believed by thousands of Christians,\nand will probably be worked up in pious tracts for the spiritual\nedification of superstitious sheep. Give a lie a day's start, said\nCobbett, and it is half round the world before you can overtake it. Give\nit a week's start, and if it happens to be a lie that suits the popular\ntaste, you may give up all hope of overtaking it at all. First in\nthe way of exposure was a telegram from the Papal Nuncio at Lisbon on\nDecember 29, saying that his name had been improperly used. He was not\nthe author of the telegram that had been fathered on him, and he knew\nnothing of Paul Bert's conversion. A day or two later the ship conveying\nthe heretic's corpse arrived at the Suez Canal. Madame Bert heard of\nthe preposterous story of her husband's conversion, and she immediately\ntelegraphed that it was absolutely and entirely false. Madame Bert, who\nis a highly accomplished woman, is a Freethinker herself, and she is too\nproud of her husband's reputation to lose a moment in contradicting a\nmiserable libel on his courage and sincerity.\n\nBefore dropping the pen, we take the opportunity of saying a few words\non Madame Adam's article on Paul Bert in the _Contemporary Review_. She\nis an able woman, but not a philosopher, and she labors under the\ncraze of thinking that she is a great force in European politics. She\nconfesses that she hated Paul Bert, and she betrays that her aversion\noriginated in pique and jealousy. We do not wish to be ungallant, but\nGambetta had good reasons for preferring Paul Bert to Juliette Lambert,\nalthough the lady is ludicrously wrong in saying that \"it was to Paul\nBert that Gambetta owed all the formulae of his scientific politics.\"\nShe forgets that Gambetta's speeches before Paul Bert became his friend\nare in print. She also ignores the fact that Gambetta was a stedfast\nFreethinker from his college days, and was never infected with that\nsentimental religiosity from which she assumes that Paul Bert perverted\nhim. Certainly he was incapable of being moved by the hackneyed\nplatitudes about science and religion that form the prelude of Madame\nAdam's article, and seem borrowed from one of M. Oaro's lectures. Nor\ndid he need Paul Bert to tell him, after the terrible struggle of 1877,\nthat Clericalism was the enemy. Still less, if that were possible,\ndid he require Paul Bert or any other man to tell him that France\nimperatively needed education free from priestcraft. Madame Adam is so\nanxious to deal Paul Bert a stab in the dark that she confuses the most\nobvious facts. Gambetta and he fought against clericalism, and labored\nfor secular education, because they were both Freethinkers as well as\nRepublicans. In venting her spite, and reciting her own witticisms, she\nfails to see the force of her own admissions. This is what she writes of\na very momentous occasion:\n\n\"I saw Gambetta at Saint Cloud the Sunday after the mishap at\nObaronne. He had just been taking the chair at the Chateau d'Eau, at an\nanti-clerical meeting of Paul Bert's.\n\n\"He came in a little late to dinner. Some dozen of us were already\nassembled on a flight of steps at the bottom of the garden when he\nappeared. He spied me at once [a woman speaks!] across the green lawn\nand a vase of tall fuchsias, and called out in his sonorous voice:\n\n\"'Admirable! superb! extraordinary! Never since Voltaire has such an\nirrefutable indictment been brought against the clergy! And what a\nstyle! What consummate art!'\n\n\"'And what bad policy!' said a great banker who was with us, in a low\nvoice, to me [note the me].\n\n\"Gambetta went on as he approached us:\n\n\"'And such an immense success--beyond anything that could be imagined!\nTen thousand enthusiastic cheers!'\n\n\"'The ten thousand and first would not have come from me,' I said [said\nI], as we greeted one another.\n\n\"'You yourself,' cried Gambetta, 'you yourself, I tell you, would\nhave been carried away; if not by the ideas, by the genius lavished in\npropounding them.'\"\n\nYes, and notwithstanding Madame Adam's \"religion\" and the great banker's\n\"policy,\" Gambetta and Paul Bert were in the right, and miles above\ntheir heads.\n\nFollowing Madame Adam's lively nonsense, the _Echo_ says that Paul Bert\ntried to set up another Inquisition. \"In France,\" says this organ of\nChristian Radicalism, \"they strive to prevent a parent from giving his\nchild a religious education.\" They do nothing of the kind. They simply\ninsist that the religious education shall not be given in the national\nschool. Every French parent is free to give religious instruction to his\nchildren at home, and there are still thousands of State priests who can\nsupply his deficiencies in that respect. Meanwhile national education\nprogresses in good earnest. The Empire left nearly half the population\nunable to write their names. Now the Republic educates every boy and\ngirl, and Mr. Matthew Arnold assures us that the French schools are\namong the best in Europe, while the sale of good books is prodigious.\nGambetta and Paul Bert worked, fought, and sacrificed for this, and they\ncannot be robbed of the glory.\n\n\n\n\nBRADLAUGH'S GHOST.\n\nDirectly after Charles Bradlaugh's death we expressed a belief that the\nChristians would concoct stories about him as soon as it was safe to do\nso. It took some time to concoct and circulate the pious narratives of\nthe deathbeds of Voltaire and Thomas Paine, and a proper interval is\nnecessary in the case of the great Iconoclast. Already, however, the\nmore superstitious and fanatical Christians are shaking their heads and\nmuttering that \"Bradlaugh must have said something when he was dying,\nonly they wouldn't allow believers in his sick room to hear it.\" By\nand bye the more cunning and unscrupulous will come to the aid of\ntheir weaker brethren, and a circumstantial story will be circulated in\nSunday-schools and Christian meetings.\n\nWe are well aware that his daughter took every precaution. She has\nthe signed testimony of the nurses, that her father never spoke on the\nsubject of religion during his last illness. But this may not avail,\nfor similar precautions are admitted to have been taken in the cases\nof Voltaire and Paine, and, in despite of this, the Christian traducers\nhave forged the testimony of imaginary interlopers, whose word cannot\nbe disproved, as they never existed outside the creative fancy of these\nliars for the glory of God.\n\nIt is quite a superstition that truth is always a match for falsehood.\nGeorge Eliot remarked that the human mind takes absurdity as asses chew\nthistles. We add that it swallows falsehood as a cat laps milk. It was\nhumorously said the other day by Colonel Ingersoll that \"The truth is\nthe weakest thing in the world. It always comes into the arena naked,\nand there it meets a healthy young lie in complete armor, and the result\nis that the truth gets licked. One good, solid lie will knock out a\nhundred truths.\" It has done so with respect to the death of Voltaire\nand Paine, and it will do so with respect to the death of Charles\nBradlaugh.\n\nMeanwhile the Spiritualists are having an innings. Charles Bradlaugh was\nburied by his friends at Woking, but his ghost is said to have turned\nup at Birmingham. It appears from a report in the _Medium and\nDaybreak_ that Mr. Charles Gray, of 139 Pershore-road, being \"sadly\nsorrow-stricken by the passing away of a son,\" was \"constrained to\nremain at home\" on the evening of May 31. A seance was arranged \"with\na few friends,\" and of course a message was received from the dear\ndeparted boy. This was conveyed through Mr. Russell, junior, whose\nage is not stated. Then Mr. Reedman \"was controlled to write by C.\nBradlaugh.\" Mr. Reedman wrote \"in a perfectly unconscious state, and on\nthe departure of the influence was much surprised on being told of the\nnature of the communication.\"\n\nMr. Reedman's surprise may have been great, but it scarcely equals our\nown. One would imagine that if Charles Bradlaugh still lived, and were\nable to communicate with people in this world, he would speak to his\nbeloved daughter, and to the friends who loved him with a deathless\naffection. Why should he go all the way to Birmingham instead of doing\nhis first business in London? Why should he turn up at the house of Mr.\nGray? Why should he control the obscure Mr. Reedman? This behavior is\nabsolutely foreign to the character of Charles Bradlaugh. It was not one\nof his weaknesses to beat about the bush. He went straight to his mark,\nand found a way or made one, Death seems to change a man, if we may\nbelieve the Spiritualists; but if it has altered Charles Bradlaugh's\ncharacter, it has effected a still more startling change in his\nintellect and expression.\n\nHere is a \"correct copy\" of Charles Bradlaugh's message to mankind, and\nmost of our readers will regard it as a very Brummagen communication:--\n\n\"As I am not to speak (so says the 'Warrior Chief'), I am to say in\nwriting, I have found a life beyond the grave that I did not wish for\nnor believe in; but it is even so. My voice shall yet declare it. I have\nto undo all, or nearly all, I have done, but I will not complain. My\nmind is subdued, but I will be a man. It is a most glorious truth that\nhas now more clearly dawned upon my mind, that there is a grand and\nnoble purpose before all men, worth living for! May this be the dawn\nof a new and glorious era of the spiritual life of your humble friend\nCharles Bradlaugh!\n\n\"There is a God! There is a Divine principle. There is more in life\nthan we wot of, but vastly more in death! Oh! for a thousand tongues to\ndeclare the truths which are now fast dawning upon my bewildered mind!\nDeath, the great leveller, need have no more terrors for us, for it has\nbeen conquered by the Great Spirit, in giving us a never-ending life in\nthe glorious spheres of immortal bliss. O my friends! may I be permitted\nto declare, more fully and fervently, the joys which fill my mind.\nLanguage fails, no tongue can describe.\"\n\nOur own impression is that Professor Huxley was justified in saying\nthat Spiritualism adds a new terror to death. Fancy the awful depth of\nflaccid imbecility into which Charles Bradlaugh must have fallen, to\nindulge in \"ohs,\" and gasp out \"glorious,\" \"glorious,\" and talk of his\n\"subdued\" and \"bewildered\" mind, and bid himself be \"a man.\" It was\nnot thus that he spoke in the flesh. His language was manly, firm, and\nrestrained; his attitude was bold and self-reliant. After four months\nin the \"spirit world\" he is positively trembling and drivelling! It is\nenough to make the rugged Iconoclast turn in his grave. Messrs. Gray and\nReedman may rely upon it that Charles Bradlaugh is _not_ able to enter\nNo. 139 Pershore-road, Birmingham; if he were, he would descend in swift\nwrath upon his silly traducers, who have put their own inanity into\nhis mouth, making the great, virile Atheist talk like a little, flabby\nSpiritualist after an orgie of ginger-beer.\n\nAnyone may see at a glance that the style of this message, from\nbeginning to end, is not Charles Brad-laugh's. _Whose_ style it is we\ncannot say. We do not pretend to fathom the arcana of Spiritualism. It\nmay be Mr. Reedmam's, it may be another's. If it be Mr. Reedman's,\nhe must have been guilty of fraud or the victim of deception. Three\ndistinct hypotheses are possible. Either someone else produced or\nconcocted the message while he was in a foolish trance, or he wrote it\nhimself consciously, or he had been thinking of Charles Bradlaugh before\nfalling into the foolish trance and the message was due to unconscious\ncerebration.\n\nWe forbear to analyse this wretched stuff, though we might show its\nintrinsic absurdity and self-contradiction. One monstrous piece of\nfolly bestrides the rest like a colossus--\"Your humble friend Charles\nBradlaugh.\" Shade of Uriah Heep! Charles Bradlaugh the \"_humble_ friend\"\nof the illustrious Gray and Reedman! Think of it, Lord Halsbury; think\nof it, Lord Randolph Churchill. The giant who fought you, and beat you,\nin the law courts and in Parliament; the man whose face was a challenge;\nthe man who had the pride, without the malignity, of Lucifer; this\nvery man crawls into a Birmingham house, uninvited and unexpected,\nand announces himself as the \"_humble_ friend\" of some pudding-headed\npeople, engaged in a fatuous occupation that makes one blush for one's\nspecies.\n\nSurely if Charles Bradlaugh's ghost is knocking about this planet,\nhaving a mission to undo the work of his lifetime in the flesh, it\nshould begin the task in London. It was at the Hall of Science that\nCharles Bradlaugh achieved his greatest triumphs as a public teacher,\nand it is there that he should first attempt to undo his work, to\nunteach his teaching, to disabuse the minds of his dupes. Of course we\nshall be told that he must communicate through \"mediums,\" and that the\nmedium must be \"controlled\" by Charles Bradlaugh's spirit; but to this\nwe reply that Charles Bradlaugh controlled men easily while he was \"in\nthe flesh,\" and it is inconceivable that he has lost that old power if\nhe still survives.\n\nOn the whole, we think the Spiritist trick is worse than the malignity\nof orthodox Christians. A lie about a man's death-bed ends there, and\nconsigning him to hell for his infidelity is only a pious wish that\ncannot affect his fate. But getting hold of a man's ghost (\"spirit\"\nthey call it) after his death; making it turn up at public and private\nsittings of obscure fools; setting it jabbering all the flatulent\nnonsense of its manipulators; and using it in this manner until it\nhas to be dismissed for a newer, more fashionable, and more profitable\nshadow; all this is so hideous and revolting that the ordinary Christian\nlies about infidels seem almost a compliment in comparison.\n\nThis Gray-Reedman story is probably the beginning of a long and wretched\nbusiness. The Philistines are upon thee, Charles Bradlaugh! They will\nharness thee in their mill, and make thee grind their grist; and fools\nthat were not worth a moment of thy time while thou livedst will command\nthee by the hour; and Sludge the Medium will use thy great name to puff\nhis obscene vanity and swell his obscener gains. This is the worst\nof all thy trials, for thou canst not defend thyself; and, in thy\nhelplessness, fools and pigmies cut capers over thy grave.\n\n\n\n\nCHRIST AND BROTHERHOOD.\n\nClergymen are supposed to be educated; that is, they go to college\nbefore taking holy orders, and study what are called \"the classics\"--the\nmasterpieces of Greek and Roman literature. Theology is not enough to\nfit them for the pulpit. They must also be steeped in \"the humanities,\"\nIt is felt that they would never find all they require in the Bible.\nThey find a great deal of it in Pagan writings, and as these are unknown\nto the people, it is safe for the clergy to work the best \"heathen\"\nideas into their interpretation of the Christian Scriptures. There was a\ntime, indeed, when Christian preachers were fond of references to Pagan\npoets and philosophers. The people were so ignorant, and such implicit\nbelievers, that it could be done with security. But now the case is\naltered. The people are beginning to \"smell a rat.\" It dawns upon\nthem that if so many fine things were said by those old Pagans--not to\nmention the still more ancient teaching of India and Egypt--Christianity\ncan hardly merit such epithets as \"unique\" and \"wonderful.\" Accordingly\nit is becoming the fashion in clerical circles to avoid those old\nPagans, or else to damn them all in a sweeping condemnation. Some indeed\ngo to the length of declaring--or at least of insinuating--that all the\nreal truth and goodness there is in the world began with the Christian\nera. This extreme is affected by the Evangelical school, and is carried\nto its highest pitch of exaggeration by such shallow and reckless\npreachers as the Rev. Hugh Price Hughes. Soon after the _Daily\nChronicle_ correspondence on \"Is Christianity Played Out?\" this reverend\ngentleman, and most accomplished \"perverter of the truth,\" screamed from\nthe platform of St. James's Hall that women and children were regarded\nas slaves and nuisances before the time of Christ; which is either a\ndeliberate falsehood, or a gross misreading both of history and of human\nnature. Mr. Hughes has since been gathering his energies for a bolder\neffort in the same direction. He now publishes in the _Methodist Times_\nhis latest piece of recklessness or fatuity. It is a sermon on \"The\nSolidarity of Mankind,\" and is really an exhibition of the solidity of\nMr. Hughes's impudence. It required nothing but \"face,\" as Corbett used\nto call it, to utter such monstrous nonsense in a sermon; it would need\na great deal more courage than Mr. Hughes possesses to utter it on any\nplatform where he could be answered and exposed.\n\nMr. Hughes believes in our \"common humanity,\" and he traces it from \"the\ngrand old gardener\" (Tennyson). \"We are all descended from Adam,\" he\nsays, \"and related to one another.\" Now this is not true, even according\nto the Bible; for when Cain fled into the land of Nod he took a wife\nthere, which clearly implies the existence of other people than the\ndescendants of Adam. But this is not the worst. Fancy a man at this time\nof day--a burnin' an' a shinin' light to a' this place--gravely standing\nup and solemnly telling three thousand people, most of whom we suppose\nhave been to school, that the legendary Adam of the book of Genesis was\nreally the father of the whole human race!\n\nThis common humanity is claimed by Mr. Hughes as \"a purely Christian\nconception.\" Yet he foolishly admits that \"the Positivists in our\nown day have strongly insisted on this great crowning truth which we\nChristians have neglected.\" Nay, he states that when Kossuth appealed in\nEngland on behalf of Hungary, he spoke in the name of the \"solidarity\"\nof the human race. And why _solidarity_? Because the word had to be\ntaken from the French. And why from _the French_? \"Because the French,\"\nMr. Hughes says, \"have risen to a loftier level of human brotherhood\nthan we.\" Indeed! Then what becomes of your \"purely _Christian_\nconception,\" when \"infidel France\" outshines \"Christian England\"? How is\nit, too, you have to make the \"shameful\" confession that \"we\"--that is,\nthe Christians--took \"nineteen centuries to find out the negro was a man\nand therefore a brother\"? You did not find it out, in fact, until\nthe eighteenth century--the century of Voltaire and Thomas Paine--the\ncentury in which Freethought had spread so much, even in England, that\nBishop Butler in the Advertisement to his _Analogy_, dated May, 1736,\ncould say that \"many persons\" regarded Christianity as proved to be\n\"fictitious\" to \"all people of discernment,\" and thought that \"nothing\nremained but to set it up as a principal subject of mirth and ridicule.\"\nHow is it your \"Christian conceptions\" took such a surprising time to be\nunderstood? How is it they had to wait for realisation until the advent\nof an age permeated with the spirit of scepticism and secular humanity?\n\nMr. Hughes is brave enough--in the absence of a critic--to start with\nJesus Christ as the first cosmopolitan. \"He came of the Jewish stock,\"\nwe are told, \"and yet he had no trace of the Jew in him.\" Of course\nnot--in Christian sermons and Christian pictures, preached and painted\nfor non-Jewish, and indeed Jew-hating nations. But there is a very\ndecided \"trace of the Jew in him\" in the New Testament. To the Canaanite\nwoman he said, \"I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of\nIsrael.\" To the twelve he said, \"Go not into the way of the Gentiles,\nand into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the\nlost sheep of the house of Israel.\" It was Paul who, finding he could\nnot make headway against the apostles who had known Jesus personally,\nexclaimed, \"Lo, we turn to the Gentiles.\" That exclamation was a turning\npoint. It was the first real step to such universalism as Christianity\nhas attained. No wonder, therefore, that Comte puts Paul instead of\nJesus into the Positivist calendar, as the real founder of Christianity.\n\nEven in the case of St. Paul, it is perfectly idle to suppose that his\ncosmopolitanism extended beyond the Roman empire. A little study and\nreflection would show Mr. Hughes that the very fact of the Roman empire\nwas the secret of the cosmopolitanism. Moral conceptions follow in the\nwake of political expansion. The morality of a tribe is tribal; that\nof a nation is national; and national morality only developes into\ninternational morality with the growth of international interests and\ninternational communication. Now the Roman empire had broken up the\nold nationalities, and with them their local religions. The human mind\nbroadened with its political and social horizon. And the result was\nthat a cosmopolitan sentiment in morals, and a universal conception in\nreligion, naturally spread throughout the territory which was dominated\nby the Roman eagles. Christianity itself was at first a Jewish sect,\nwhich developed into a cosmopolitan system precisely because the\nnational independence of the Jews had been broken up, and all the roads\nof a great empire were open to the missionaries of a new faith.\n\nBut let us return to Mr. Hughes's statements. He tells us that the\nsolidarity of mankind was \"revealed to the human race through St.\nPaul\"--which is a great slur upon Jesus Christ, and quite inconsistent\nwith what Mr. Hughes affirms of the Nazarene. It is also inconsistent\nwith the very language of St. Paul in that sermon of his to the\nAthenians; for the great apostle, in enforcing his argument that all men\nare God's children, actually reminds the Athenians that \"certain also of\nyour own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.\"\n\nMr. Hughes goes on to say that \"our common humanity\" is \"a perfectly new\nidea.\" \"Max Muller,\" he tells us, \"says that there was no trace of it\nuntil Christ came. It is a purely Christian conception.\" Professor Max\nMuller, however, is not infallible. He sometimes panders to Christian\nprejudices, and this is a case in point. What he says about \"humanity\"\nis an etymological quibble. Certainly the Greeks knew nothing about it,\nsimply because they did not speak Latin. But they had an equivalent word\nin _philanthropia_, which was in use in the time of Plato, four hundred\nyears before the birth of Christ.*\n\n     * Mr. Hughes talks so much that he must have little time for\n     reading. Every educated man, however, is supposed to be\n     acquainted with Bacon's _Essays_, the thirteenth of which\n     opens as follows:--\"I take goodness in this sense, the\n     affecting of the weal of men, which is that the Grecians\n     called Philanthropia; and the word humanity (as it is used)\n     is a little too light to express it.\" Bacon not only knew\n     the antiquity of _Philanthropia_, but preferred it to the\n     later and less weighty term so ignorantly celebrated by Mr.\n     Hughes.\n\nMax Muller or no Max Muller, we tell Mr. Hughes that he is either\nreckless or ignorant in declaring that the idea of human brotherhood\nowes its origin to Christ, Paul, or Christianity. To say nothing of\nBuddha, whose ethics are wider than the ethics of Christ, and confining\nourselves to Greece and Rome, with the teaching of whose thinkers\nChristianity comes into more direct comparison--it is easy enough to\nprove that Mr. Hughes is in error, or worse. Four centuries before\nChrist, when Socrates was asked on one occasion as to his country, he\nreplied, \"I am a citizen of the world.\" Cicero, the great Roman\nwriter, in the century before Christ, uses the very word _caritas_,\nwhich St. Paul borrowed in his fine and famous chapter in the first\nof Corinthians. Cicero, and not St. Paul, was the first to pronounce\n\"charity\" as the tie which unites the human race. And after picturing a\nsoul full of virtue, living in charity with its friends, and taking as\nsuch all who are allied by nature, Cicero rose to a still loftier level.\n\"Moreover,\" he said, \"let it not consider itself hedged in by the walls\nof a single town, but acknowledge itself a citizen of the whole world,\nas though one city.\" In another treatise he speaks of \"fellowship with\nthe human race, charity, friendship, justice.\"\n\nWe defy Mr. Hughes to indicate a single cosmopolitan text in the New\nTestament as strong, clear, and pointed as these sayings of Socrates and\nCicero--the one Greek, the other Roman, and both before Christ. Let him\nransack gospels, epistles, acts, and revelations, and produce the text\nwe call for.\n\nFrom the time of Cicero--that is, from the time of Julius Caesar, and\nthe establishment of the Empire--the sentiment of brotherhood, the\nidea of a common humanity, spread with certainty and rapidity, and is\nreflected in the writings of the philosophers. The exclamation of the\nRoman poet, \"As a man, I regard nothing human as alien to me,\" which was\nso heartily applauded by the auditory in the theatre, expressed a\ngrowing and almost popular sentiment. The works of Seneca abound\nin fine humanitarian passages, and it must be remembered that if the\nChristians were tortured by Nero at Rome, it was by the same hand\nthat Seneca's life was cut short. \"Wherever there is a man,\" said this\nthinker, \"there is an opportunity for a deed of kindness.\" He believed\nin the natural equality of all men. Slaves were such through political\nand social causes, and their masters were bidden to refrain from\nill-using them, not only because of the cruelty of such conduct, but\nbecause of \"the natural law common to all men,\" and because \"he is of\nthe same nature as thyself.\" Seneca denounced the gladiatorial shows\nas human butcheries. So mild, tolerant, humane, and equitable was his\nteaching that the Christians of a later age were anxious to appropriate\nhim. Tertullian calls him \"Our Seneca,\" and the facile scribes of the\nnew faith forged a correspondence between him and their own St. Paul.\nOne of Seneca's passages is a clear and beautiful statement of rational\naltruism. \"Nor can anyone live happily,\" he says, \"who has regard to\nhimself alone, and uses everything for his own interests; thou must live\nfor thy neighbor, if thou wouldest live for thyself.\" Eighteen hundred\nyears afterwards Auguste Comte sublimated this principle into a motto\nof his Religion of Humanity--_Vivre pour Autrui_, Live for Others. It is\nalso expressed more didactically by Ingersoll--\"The way to be happy is\nto make others so\"--making duty and enjoyment go hand in hand.\n\nPliny, who corresponded with the emperor Trajan, and whose name is\nfamiliar to the student of Christian Evidences, exhorted parents to take\na deep interest in the education of their children. He largely endowed\nan institution in his native town of Como, for the assistance of the\nchildren of the poor. His humanity was extended to slaves. He treated\nhis own with great kindness, allowing them to dispose of their own\nearnings, and even to make wills. Of masters who had no regard for their\nslaves, he said, \"I do not know if they are great and wise; but one\nthing I do know, they are not men.\" Dion Chrysostom, another Stoic,\nplainly declared that slavery was an infringement of the natural\nrights of men, who were all born for liberty; a dictum which cannot\nbe paralleled in any part of the New Testament. It must be admitted,\nindeed, that Paul, in sending the slave Onesimus back to his master\nPhilemon, did bespeak humane and even brotherly treatment for the\nrunaway; but he bespoke it for him as a Christian, not simply as a man,\nand uttered no single word in rebuke of the institution of slavery.\n\nPlutarch's humanity was noble and tender. \"The proper end of man,\" he\nsaid, \"is to love and to be loved.\" He regarded his slaves as inferior\nmembers of his own family. How strong, yet how dignified, is his\ncondemnation of masters who sold their slaves when disabled by old age.\nHe protests that the fountain of goodness and humanity should never dry\nup in a man. \"For myself,\" he said, \"I should never have the heart to\nsell the ox which had long labored on my ground, and could no longer\nwork on account of old age, still less could I chase a slave from his\ncountry, from the place where he has been nourished for so long,\nand from the way of life to which he has been so long accustomed.\"\nSentiments like these were the natural precursors of the abolition of\nslavery, as far as it could be abolished by moral considerations.\n\nEpictetus, the great Stoic philosopher, who had himself been a slave,\ntaught the loftiest morality. Pascal admits that he was \"one of the\nphilosophers of the world who have best understood the duty of man.\" He\ndisdained slavery from the point of view of the masters, as he abhorred\nit from the point of view of the slaves. \"As a healthy man,\" he said,\n\"does not wish to be waited upon by the infirm, or desire that those who\nlive with him should be invalids, the freeman should not allow himself\nto be waited upon by slaves, or leave those who live with him in\nservitude.\" It is idle to pretend, as Professor Schmidt of Strasburg\ndoes, that the ideas of Epictetus are \"colored with a reflection of\nChristianity.\" The philosopher's one reference to the Galileans, by whom\nhe is thought to have meant the Christians, is somewhat contemptuous.\nProfessor Schmidt says he \"misunderstood\" the Galileans; but George\nLong, the translator of Epictetus, is probably truer in saying that he\n\"knew little about the Christians, and only knew some examples of their\nobstinate adherence to the new faith and the fanatical behavior of some\nof the converts.\" It should be remembered that Epictetus was almost\na contemporary of St. Paul, and the accurate students of early\nChristianity will be able to estimate how far it was likely, at that\ntime, to have influenced the philosophers of Rome.\n\nMarcus Aurelius was one of the wisest and best of men. Emperor of the\ncivilised world, he lived a life of great simplicity, bearing all the\nburdens of his high office, and drawing philosophy from the depths of\nhis own contemplation. His _Meditations_ were only written for his own\neyes; they were a kind of philosophical diary; and they have the charm\nof perfect sincerity. He was born a.d. 121, he became Emperor a.d.\n161, and died a.d. 180, after nineteen years of a government which\nillustrated Plato's words about the good that would ensue when kings\nwere philosophers and philosophers were kings. Cardinal Barberini, who\ntranslated the Emperor's _Meditations_ into Italian, in 1675, dedicated\nthe translation to his own soul, to make it \"redder than his purple at\nthe sight of the virtues of this Gentile.\"\n\nMarcus Aurelius combines reason with beautiful sentiment. His emotion is\nalways accompanied by thought. Here, for instance, is a noble passage on\nthe social commonwealth--\"For we are made for co-operation, like feet,\nlike hands, like eyelids, like the rows of the upper and lower teeth.\nTo act against one another then is contrary to nature; and it is acting\nagainst one another to be vexed and to turn away.\" In a still loftier\npassage he says--and let us remember he says it to himself, not to an\napplauding audience, but quietly, and with absolute truth, and no taint\nof theatricality--\"My nature is rational and social; and my city and\ncountry, so far as I am Antoninus, is Rome; but so far as I am a man,\nit is the world.\" In his brief, pregnant way, he states the law of human\nsolidarity--\"That which is not good for the swarm, neither is it good\nfor the bee.\" And who could fail to appreciate this sentiment, coming\nas it did from the ruler of a great empire?--\"One thing here is worth\na great deal, to pass thy life in truth and justice, with a benevolent\ndisposition even to liars and unjust men.\"\n\nHere again, it is the fashion in some circles, to pretend that Marcus\nAurelius was influenced by the spread of Christian ideas. George Long,\nhowever, speaks the language of truth and sobriety in saying, \"It\nis quite certain that Antoninus did not derive any of his Ethical\nprinciples from a religion of which he knew nothing.\" To say as Dr.\nSchmidt does that \"Christian ideas filled the air\" is easy enough,\nbut where is the proof? No doubt the Christian writers made great\npretensions as to the spread of their religion, but they were\nnotoriously sanguine and inaccurate, and we know what value to attach to\nsuch pretensions in the second century when we reflect that even in\nthe fourth century, up to the point of Constantine's conversion,\nChristianity had only succeeded in drawing into its fold about a\ntwentieth of the inhabitants of the empire. Enough has been said in this\narticle to show that the idea of our common humanity is not \"a purely\nChristian conception,\" that it arose in the natural course of human\ndevelopment, and that in this, as in other cases, the apologists of\nChristianity have simply appropriated to their own creed the fruits of\nthe political, social, and moral growth of Western civilisation.\n\n\n\n\nTHE SONS OF GOD.\n\n     \"The sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair.\"\n     --Genesis vi. 8.\n\nAccording to the first book of the Bible, the earth fell into a very\nwicked condition in the days of the patriarchs. God made everything\ngood, but the Devil turned everything bad; and in the end the Lord\nput the whole concern into liquidation. It was a case of universal\nbankruptcy. All that was saved out of the catastrophe was a consignment\nof eight human beings and an unknown number of elephants, crocodiles,\nhorses, pigs, dogs, cats, and fleas.\n\nAmong other enormities of the antediluvian world was the fondness shown\nby the sons of God for the daughters of men. That fondness has continued\never since. The deluge itself could not wash out the amatory feelings\nwith which the pious males regard those fair creatures who were once\nsupposed to be the Devil's chief agents on earth. Even to this day it\nis a fact that courtship goes on with remarkable briskness in religious\ncircles. Churches and chapels are places of harmless assignation, and\nhow many matches are made in Sunday-schools, where Alfred and Angelina\nmeet to teach the scripture and flirt. As for the clergy, who are\npeculiarly the sons of God, they are notorious for their partiality to\nthe sex. They purr about the ladies like black tom-cats. Some of them\nare adepts in the art of rolling one eye heavenwards and letting the\nother languish on the fair faces of the daughters of men. It is also\nnoticeable that the Protestant clericals marry early and often, and\ngenerally beget a numerous progeny; while the Catholic priest who, being\nstrictly celibate, _never_ adds to the population, \"mashes\" the ladies\nthrough the confessional, worming out all their secrets, and making them\nas pliable as wax in his holy hands. Too often the professional son of\nGod is a chartered libertine, whose amors are carried on under a veil of\nsanctity. What else, indeed, could be expected when a lot of lusty\nyoung fellows, in the prime of life, foreswear marriage, take vows of\nchastity, and undertake to stem the current of their natures by such\nfeeble dams as prayers and hymns?\n\nWho the original \"sons of God\" were is a moot point. God only knows, and\nhe has not told us. But Jewish and Christian divines have advanced many\ntheories. According to some the sons of Gods were the offspring of Seth,\nwho was born holy in succession to righteous Abel, while the daughters\nof men were the offspring of wicked Cain. Among the oriental Christians\nit is said that the children of Seth tried to regain Paradise by\nliving in great austerity on Mount Hermon, but they soon tired of\ntheir laborious days and cheerless nights, and cast sheep's-eyes on the\ndaughters of Cain, who beauty was equal to their father's wickedness.\nMarriages followed, and the Devil triumphed again.\n\nAccording to the Cabbalists, two angels, Aza and Azael, complained to\nGod at the creation of man. God answered, \"You, O angels, if you were\nin the lower world, you too would sin.\" They descended on earth, and\ndirectly they saw the ladies they forgot heaven. They married and\nexchanged the hallelujahs of the celestial chorus for the tender tones\nof loving women and the sweet prattle of little children. Having sinned,\nor, to use the vile language of religion, \"polluted themselves with\nwomen,\" they became clothed with flesh. On trying to regain Paradise\nthey failed, and were cast back on the mountains, where they continued\nto beget giants and devils.\n\n\"There were giants in the earth in those days\" says Scripture. Of\ncourse there were. Every barbarous people has similar legends of\nprimitive ages. The translators of our Revised Version are ashamed\nof these mythical personages as being too suggestive of Jack and the\nBeanstalk, so they have substituted Anakim for giants. In other words,\nthey have shirked the duty of translators, and left the nonsense veiled\nunder the original word.\n\nThe Mohammedans say that not only giants, but also Jins, were born of\nthe sons of God, who married the daughters of men. The Jins soon had the\nworld in their power. They ruled everywhere, and built colossal works,\nincluding the pyramids.\n\nOf the giants, the most remarkable was Og. He was taller than the last\nYankee story, for at the Deluge he stopped the windows of heaven with\nhis hands, or the water would have risen over his head. The Talmud says\nthat he saved himself by swimming close to the ark in company with the\nrhinoceros. The water there happened to be cold, while all the rest was\nboiling hot; and thus Og was saved while all the other giants perished.\nAccording to another story, Og climbed on the roof of the ark, and\nwhen Noah tried to dislodge him, he swore that he would become the\npatriarch's slave. Noah at once clinched the bargain, and food was\npassed through a hole for the giant every day.\n\nWhen we look into them we find the myths of the Bible wonderfully like\nthe myths of other systems. The Giants are similar to the Titans, and\nthe union of divine males with human females is similar to the amors of\nJupiter, Apollo, Neptune, and Mars with the women of old. In this\nmatter there is nothing new under the sun. Every fresh myth is only the\nrecasting of an ancient fable, born of ignorance and imagination.\n\nLet it finally be noted that this old Genesaic story of the angelic\nhusbands of earthly women gives us a poor idea of the felicity of\nheaven. In that unknown region, as Jesus Christ informed his disciples,\nthere is neither marrying nor giving in marriage; that is, no males, no\nfemales, no courting, no loving, no children, and no homes. Men cease to\nbe men and women cease to be women. Everybody is of the neuter gender.\n\nOr else all the angels are gentlemen, without a lady amongst them.\nPerhaps the latter view is preferable, as it harmonises with the Bible,\nin which the angels are always _he's_. In that case heaven would be, to\nsay the least, rather a dull place. No whispering in the moonlight,\nno clasped hands under the throbbing stars. Not even a kiss under the\nmisletoe. Oh, what must it be to be there! No wonder the sons of God\nwandered from their cheerless Paradise, visited this lower world, and\nsaw the daughters of men that they were fair.\n\n\n\n\nMELCHIZEDEK.\n\nMelchizedek is the most extraordinary person of whom we have any record.\nChrist was born and Adam was made, but Melchizedek never began to be\nand will never cease to exist. If the Bible were not such an intensely\nserious book without a gleam of humor, except of the unconscious\nHibernian kind, we might conclude that Melchizedek was _nobody_, for the\ndescription admirably suits that character. But the Bible does not\nplay and must not be played with. All its personages are _bona fide_\nrealities, from the Ancient of Days with white woolly hair on the throne\nof heaven to the prophet Jonah who took three days' lodging in the belly\nof a whale.\n\nThe name Melchizedek means _king_ of justice, being derived from\n_melec_, a king, and _tzedec_, justice. When the gentleman bearing this\nname is introduced to us in the fourteenth of Genesis, he is king of\nSalem, which means peace. Salem was a city on the site of Zion.\n\nOriginally it was called Jebus, then Zadek, then Salem, and finally\nJerusalem. So says Rabbi Joseph Ben-Gorion. But other writers, no doubt\njust as well informed, differ from him; and while the doctors disagree,\nsimple laymen may well hold their judgment in suspense; or, better\nstill, dismiss Jebus, Zadek, Salem, and Jerusalem, to the limbo of\nlearned trivialities. Counting the spots on a leopard, the quills on\na porcupine, or the hairs in a cat's whiskers, is just as amusing and\nquite as edifying as most of the problems of divines and commentators.\n\nWhen Abraham returned from a successful campaign, in which he defeated\nfive kings and their armies with three hundred and eighteen raw\nrecruits, Melchizedek came out to meet him with victuals and drink.\nThese two friends joined in the friendly office of _scratching_ each\nother. They were, in fact, a small mutual admiration society. Abraham,\nalthough at other times a rank coward, was on this occasion a bold\nwarrior laden with spoil; and Melchizedek besides being King of Salem,\nwas \"the priest of the most high God.\" \"Bully for you, Abraham,\" said\nMelchizedek. \"Bully for you, Melchizedek,\" said Abraham. As usual,\nhowever, the priest got the best of it, for the patriarch paid him\ntithes, which were a capital return for his compliments. Genesis is a\nlittle confused, indeed; and what scripture is not? \"And he gave him\ntithes of all\" is not very clear. It reminds one of the West of England\nyokel, who gave his evidence on a case of homicide in this way:\n\n\"He had a stick, and he had a stick; and he hit he, and he hit he. And\nif he'd only hit he as hard as he hit he, he'd a' killed he, and not he\nhe.\"\n\nBut we must not be too hard on Bibles and yokels. So long as we can get\na scintillation of their meaning we must be satisfied. Scripture, we may\ntake it, means that the _he_ who paid tithes was Abraham, and the _him_\nwho received them was Melchizedek.\n\nNow the book of Genesis is not an early, but a very late portion of the\nJewish scriptures, dating only a few centuries before Christ. And we may\ndepend on it that this little sentence about _tithes_, and perhaps the\nwhole story that leads up to it, was got up by the priests, to give\nthe authority of Abraham's name and the sanction of antiquity to an\ninstitution which kept them in luxury at the expense of their neighbors.\n\nOur view of the case is supported by the fact that Melchizedek's name\ndoes not appear again in the whole of the Old Testament, except in the\nhundred and tenth Psalm, where somebody or other (the parsons of\ncourse say Christ) is called \"a priest for ever after the order of\nMelchizedek.\" Paul, or whoever wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews,\nworks up this hint in fine style. It would puzzle a lunatic, or a\nfortune-teller, or the Archbishop of Canterbury, or God Almighty\nhimself, to say what the Seventh of Hebrews means. We give it up as an\ninsoluble conundrum, and we observe that every commentator with a grain\nof sense and honesty does the same. But there is one luminous flash\nin the jumble of metaphysical darkness. Melchizedek is described\nas \"without father, without mother, without descent, having neither\nbeginning of days nor end of life.\" It will be easy to recognise a\ngentleman of that description when you meet him. When we _do_ meet him\nwe shall readily acknowledge him as our king and priest, and pay him\nan income tax of two shillings in the pound; but until then we warn all\nkings and priests off our doorsteps.\n\nJewish traditions say that Melchizedek was the son of Shem, and set\napart for the purpose of watching and burying Adam's carcase when it\nwas unshipped from the Ark. Some, however, maintain that he was of a\ncelestial race; while other (Christian) speculators have held that he\nwas no less than Jesus Christ himself, who put in an early appearance\nin Abraham's days to keep the Jewish pot boiling. St. Athanasius tells a\nlong-winded story of Melchizedek and Abraham, which shows what stuff the\nearly Christians believed. According to the Talmud, Melchizedek composed\nthe hundred and tenth Psalm himself; and although he is without end of\ndays, his tomb was shown at Jerusalem in the time of Gemelli Oarrere the\ntraveller.\n\nThere was an heretical sect called the _Melchizedekiana_ in the third\ncentury. They held that Jesus Christ was, according to Hebrews, only of\nthe order of Melchizedek, and therefore that Melchizedek himself was\nthe more venerable. This heresy revived in Egypt after its suppression\nelsewhere, and its adherents claimed that Melchizedek was the\nHoly Ghost. The last time Melchizedek was heard of he was a London\ncoster-monger's donkey, but whether this was a real incarnation of the\noriginal Melchizedek no one is able to decide, unless the Lord should\nagain, as in the case of Balaam's companion, \"open the mouth of the ass\"\nand inform the world of the things that belong unto its peace.\n\n\n\n\nS'W'ELP ME GOD.\n\nWhoever has seen a Hebrew money-lender in a County Court take up a copy\nof the Old Testament, present the greasy cover to his greasy lips, and,\nlike honest Moses in the _School for Scandal_, \"take his oath on that,\"\nmust have had a lively impression as to the value of swearing as a\nreligious ceremony. And this impression must have been heightened when\nhe has seen an ingenuous Christian, on the other side of the suit,\npresent a copy of the New Testament to _his_ pious lips, and quietly\nswear to the very opposite of all that the God-fearing Jew had solemnly\ndeclared to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.\nOne's appreciation of the oath is still further increased by watching\nthe various litigants and witnesses as they caress the sacred volume:\nHere a gentleman wears an expression of countenance which seems to imply\n\"I guess they'll get a good deal of truth out of me\"; and there anothers\nface seems to promise as great a regard for truth as is consistent\nwith his understanding with the solicitor who subpoenaed him as an\nindependent witness in the interest of justice and a sound client. Hard\nswearing is the order of the day. So conflicting is the evidence on\nsimple matters of fact that it is perfectly obvious that the very\natmosphere is charged with duplicity. The thing is taken as a matter\nof course. Judges are used to it, and act accordingly, deciding in most\ncases by a keen observation of the witnesses and an extensive knowlege\nof the seamy side of nature. But sometimes the very judges are\nnonplussed, so brazen are the faces of the gentlemen who \"have kissed\nthe book\" Very often, no doubt, their honors feel inclined to say,\nlike the American judge in directing his jury, \"Well, gentlemen, if\nyou believe what these witnesses swear, you will give a verdict for the\nplaintiff; and if you believe what the other witnesses swear, you will\ngive a verdict for the defendant; but if, like me, you don't believe\nwhat either side swears, I'm hanged if I know what you will do.\"\n\nThe fact is, the oath is absolutely useless if its object is to prevent\nfalse witness. Should there be any likelihood of a persecution for\nperjury, a two-faced Testament-kisser will be on his guard, and be very\ncareful to tell only such lies as cannot be clearly proved against him.\nHe dreads the prospect of daily exercise on the treadmill, he loathes\nthe idea of picking oakum, and his gorge rises at the thought of brown\nbread and skilly. But so long as that danger is avoided, there are hosts\nof witnesses, most of them very good Christians, who have been suckled\non the Gospel in Sunday Schools, and fed afterwards on the strong meat\nof the Word in churches and chapels, who will swear fast and loose after\ncalling God to witness to their veracity. They ask the Almighty to\ndeal with them according as they tell the truth, yet for all that they\nproceed to tell the most unblushing lies. What is the reason of this\nstrange inconsistency? Simply this. Hell is a long way off, and many\nthings may happen before the Day of Judgment. Besides, God is merciful;\nhe is always ready to forgive sins; a man has only to repent in time,\nthat is a few minutes before death, and all his sins will be washed\nout in the cleansing blood of Christ. Notwithstanding all his lies in\nearthly courts, the repentant sinner will not lose his right of walking\nabout for ever and ever in the court of heaven, although some poor devil\nwhose liberty or property he swore away may be frizzling for ever and\never in hell.\n\nWe are strongly of opinion that if the oath were abolished altogether\nthere would be fewer falsehoods told in our public courts. No doubt\nthe law of perjury has some effect, but it is less than is generally\nimagined, partly because the law is difficult to apply, and partly\nbecause there is a wide disinclination to apply it, owing to a sort\nof freemasonry in false witness, which is apt to be regarded as an\nessential part of the game of litigation. Here and there, too, there\nmay be a person of sincere piety, who fears to tell a lie in what he\nconsiders the direct presence of God. But for the most part the fear of\npunishment, in this world or in the next, will not make men veracious.\nThe fact is proved by universal experience; nay, there are judges, as\nwell as philosophers, who openly declare that the oath has a direct\ntendency to create perjury. Anyone, with a true sense of morality will\nunderstand the reason of this. Fear is not a moral motive; and when the\nthreatened punishment is very remote or very uncertain, it has next to\nno deterrent effect. Cupidity is matched against fear, and the odds of\nthe game being in its favor, it wins. But if a moral motive is appealed\nto, the case is different. Many a man will tell a lie in the witness-box\nwho would scruple to do so \"on his honor\"; many a man will lie before\nGod who would scruple to deceive a friend. Let a man feel that he is\ntrusted, let his self-respect be appealed to, and he is more likely to\nbe veracious than he would be if he were threatened with imprisonment in\nthis life and hell-fire in the next.\n\nWhy Christians should cling to this relic of barbarity it is difficult\nto conceive. Their Savior plainly commanded them to \"Swear not at all,\"\nand the early Church obeyed this injunction until it rose to power under\nConstantine. It is also a striking fact that the apostle Peter, when he\ndisobeyed his Master, and took an oath, used it to confirm a palpable\nlie. When the damsel charged him in court with having been a follower\nof Jesus, he \"Denied it with an oath.\" \"You were one of them,\" said the\ndamsel. \"I wasn't,\" said Peter. \"You _were_ with him,\" she rejoined.\nWhereupon Peter exclaimed \"S'w'elp me God, I never knew him.\" Surely if\nself-interest made Peter commit flat perjury in the bodily presence\nof his Savior, it is idle to assert that the oath in any way promotes\nveracity.\n\n\n\n\nINFIDEL HOMES. *\n\n     * _The Influence of Scepticism on Character_. Being the\n     sixteenth Fernley Lecture.   By the Rev. William L.\n     Watkinson.   London: T. Woolmer.\n\nJohn Wesley was a man of considerable force of mind and singular\nstrength of character. But he was very unfortunate, to say the least of\nit, in his relations with women. His marriage was a deplorable misunion,\nand his latest biographer, who aims at presenting a faithful picture of\nthe founder of Wesleyanism, has to dwell very largely on his domestic\nmiseries. Wesley held patriarchal views on household matters, the proper\nsubordination of the wife being a prime article of his faith. Mrs.\nWesley, however, entertained different views. She is therefore described\nas a frightful shrew, and rated for her inordinate jealousy, although\nher husband's attentions to other ladies certainly gave her many\nprovocations.\n\nIn face of these facts, it might naturally be thought that Wesleyans\nwould say as little as possible about the domestic infelicities of\nFreethinkers. But Mr. Watkinson is not to be restrained by any such\nconsideration. Although a Wesleyan (as we understand) he challenges\ncomparisons on this point. He has read the biographies and\nautobiographies of several \"leading Freethinkers,\" and he invites the\nworld to witness how selfish and sensual they were in their domestic\nrelations. He is a pulpit rhetorician, so he goes boldly and recklessly\nto work. Subtlety and discrimination he abhors as pedantic vices,\nsavoring too much of \"culture.\" His judgments are of the robustious\norder. Like Jesus Christ, he fancies that all men can be divided into\nsheep and goats. The good are good, and the bad are bad. And naturally\nthe good are Christians and bad are Freethinkers.\n\nThe first half of Mr. Watkinson's book of 162 pages (it must have been\na pretty long lecture!) is a preface to the second half, which contains\nhis fling at Goethe, Mill, George Eliot, Harriet Martineau, Carlyle,\nand other offenders against the Watkinsonian code. We think it\nadvisable, therefore, to follow him through his preface first, and\nthrough his \"charges\" afterwards.\n\nEmbedded in a lot of obscure or questionable matter in Mr. Watkinson's\nexordium is this sentence--\"What we believe with our whole heart is of\nthe highest consequence to us.\" True, but whether it is of the highest\nconsequence to other people depends on what it is. Conviction is a good\nthing, but it cannot dispense with the criterion of truth. On the other\nhand, what passes for conviction may often be mere acquiescence. That\nterm, we believe, would accurately describe the creed of ninety-nine out\nof every hundred, in every part of the world, whose particular faith is\nmerely the result of the geographical accident of their birth. Assuredly\nwe do not agree with Mr. Watkinson that \"all reasonable people will\nacknowledge that the faith of Christian believers is to a considerable\nextent most real; nay, in tens of thousand of cases it is the most\nreal thing in their life.\" Mr. Cotter Morison laboriously refutes this\nposition in his fine volume on _The Service of Man_. Mill denied and\nderided it in a famous passage of his great essay _On Liberty_. Mr.\nJustice Stephen denies it in the _Nineteenth Century_. Carlyle also,\naccording to Mr. Fronde, said that \"religion as it existed in England\nhad ceased to operate all over the conduct of men in their ordinary\nbusiness, it was a hollow appearance, a word without force in it.\" These\nmen may not be \"reasonable\" in Mr. Watkinson's judgment, but with most\npeople their word carries a greater weight than his.\n\nMr. Watkinson contends--and what will not a preacher contend?--that \"the\ndenial of the great truths of the Evangelical faith can exert only\na baneful influence on character.\" We quite agree with him. But\nevangelicalism, and the great truths of evangelicalism, are very\ndifferent things. It is dangerous to deny any \"great truth,\" but how\nmany does evangelicalism possess? Mr. Watkinson would say \"many.\" We\nshould say \"none.\" Still less, if that were possible, should we assent\nto his statement that \"morals in all spheres and manifestations must\nsuffer deeply by the prevalence of scepticism.\" Mr. Morison, asserts and\nproves that this sceptical age is the most moral the world has seen, and\nthat as we go back into the Ages of Faith, vice and crime grow denser\nand darker.\n\nIf the appeal is to history, of which Mr. Watkinson's references do not\nbetray a profound knowledge, the verdict will be dead against him.\n\nMr. Justice Stephen thinks morality can look after itself, but he doubts\nwhether \"Christian charity\" will survive \"Christian theology.\" This\nfurnishes Mr. Watkinson with a sufficient theme for an impressive\nsermon. But his notion of \"Christian charity\" and Mr. Justice Stephen's\nare very different. The hard-headed judge means the sentimentalism and\n\"pathetic exaggerations\" of the Sermon on the Mount, which he has since\ndistinctly said would destroy society if they were fully practised.\n\"Morality,\" says Mr. Watkinson, \"would suffer on the mystical side.\"\nPerhaps so. It might be no longer possible for a Louis the Fifteenth to\nask God's blessing when he went to debauch a young girl in the _Parc\naux Cerfs_, or for a grave philosopher like Mr. Tylor to write in his\n_Anthropology_ that \"in Europe brigands are notoriously church-goers.\"\nYet morality might gain as much on the practical side as it lost on the\nmystical, and we fancy mankind would profit by the change.\n\nNow for Mr. Watkinson's history, which he prints in small capitals,\nprobably to show it is the real, unadulterated article. He tell us that\n\"the experiment of a nation living practically a purely secular life has\nbeen tried more than once\" with disastrous results. He is, however, very\ncareful not to mention these nations, and we defy him to do so. What he\ndoes is this. He rushes off to Pompeii, whose inhabitants he thinks were\nSecularists! He also reminds us in a casual way that \"they had crucified\nChrist a few years before,\" which again is news. Equally accurate is the\nstatement that Pompeii was an \"infamous\" city, \"full\" of drunkenness,\ncruelty, etc. Probably Mr. Watkinson, like most good Christians who go\nto Pompeii, visited an establishment, such as we have thousands of\nin Christendom, devoted to the practical worship of Venus without\nneglecting Priapus. He has forgotten the immortal letter of Pliny, and\nthe dead Roman sentinel at the post of duty. He acts like a foreigner\nwho should describe London from his experience at a brothel.\n\nPhilosophy comes next. Mr. Watkinson puts in a superior way the\nclap-trap of Christian Evidence lecturers. If man is purely material,\nand the law of causation is universal, where, he asks, \"is the place for\nvirtue, for praise, for blame?\" Has Mr. Watkinson never read the answer\nto these questions? If he has not, he has much to learn; if he has, he\nshould refute them. Merely positing and repositing an old question is\na very stale trick in religious controversy. It imposes on some people,\nbut they belong to the \"mostly fools.\"\n\n\"Morality is in as much peril as faith,\" cries Mr. Watkinson. Well,\nthe clergy have been crying that for two centuries, yet our criminal\nstatistics lessen, society improves, and literature grows cleaner. As\nfor the \"nasty nude figures\" that offend Mr. Watkinson's eyes in the\nFrench Salon, we would remind him that God Almighty makes everybody\nnaked, clothes being a human invention. With respect to the Shelley\nSociety \"representing the _Cenci_ and other monstrous themes,\" we\nconclude that Mr. Watkinson does not know what he is talking about.\nThere is incest in the _Cenci_, but it is treated in a high dramatic\nspirit as a frightful crime, ending in bloodshed and desolation. There\nis also incest in the Bible, commonplace, vulgar, bestial incest,\nrecorded without a word of disapprobation. Surely when a Christian\nminister, who says the Bible is God's Word, knowing it contains the\nbeastly story of Lot and his daughters, cries out against Shelley's\n_Cenci_ as \"monstrous,\" he invites inextinguishable Rabelaisian\nlaughter. No other reply is fitting for such a \"monstrous\" absurdity,\nand we leave our readers to shake their sides at Mr. Watkinson's\nexpense.\n\nMr. Watkinson asks whether infidelity has \"produced new and higher types\nof character.\" Naturally he answers the question in the negative. \"The\nlives of infidel teachers,\" he exclaims, \"are in saddest contrast to\ntheir pretentious philosophies and bland assumptions.\" He then passes in\nreview a picked number of these upstarts, dealing with each of them in\na Watkinsonian manner. His rough-and-ready method is this. Carefully\nleaving out of sight all the good they did, and the high example of\nhonest thought they set to the world, he dilates upon their failings\nwithout the least regard to the general moral atmosphere of their age,\nor the proportion of their defects to the entirety of their natures.\nMr. Smith, the greengrocer, whose horizon is limited to his shop and his\nchapel, may lead a very exemplary life, according to orthodox standards;\nbut his virtues, as well as his vices, are rather of a negative\ncharacter, and the world at large is not much the better for his having\nlived in it. On the other hand a man like Mirabeau may be shockingly\nincontinent, but if in the crisis of a nation's history he places his\ngenius, his eloquence, and his heroic courage at the service of liberty,\nand helps to mark a new epoch of progress, humanity can afford to pardon\nhis sexual looseness in consideration of his splendid service to the\nrace. Judgment, in short, must be pronounced on the sum-total of a man's\nlife, and not on a selected aspect. Further, the faults that might be\noverwhelming in the character of Mr. Smith, the Methodist greengrocer,\nmay sink into comparative insignificance in the character of a great\nman, whose intellect and emotions are on a mightier scale. This truth is\nadmirably expressed in Carlyle's _Essay on Burns_.\n\n\"Not the few inches of deflection from the mathematical orbit, which\nare so easily measured, but the _ratio_ of these to the whole diameter,\nconstitutes the real aberration. This orbit may be a planet's,\nits diameter the breadth of the solar system; or it may be a city\nhippodrome; nay the circle of a ginhorse, its diameter a score of feet\nor paces. But the inches of deflection only are measured: and it is\nassumed that the diameter of the ginhorse, and that of the planet, will\nyield the same ratio when compared with them! Here lies the root of\nmany a blind, cruel condemnation of Burnses, Swifts, Rousseaus, which\none never listens to with approval. Granted, the ship comes into harbor\nwith shrouds and tackle damaged; the pilot is blameworthy; he has not\nbeen all-wise and all-powerful: but to know _how_ blameworthy, tell us\nfirst whether his voyage has been round the Globe, or only to Ramsgate\nand the Isle of Dogs.\"\n\nWe commend this fine passage to Mr. Watkinson's attention. It may make\nhim a little more modest when he next applies his orthodox tape and\ncallipers to the character of his betters.\n\nGoethe is Mr. Watkinson's first infidel hero, and we are glad to see\nthat he makes this great poet a present to Freethought. Some Christians\nclaim Goethe as really one of themselves, but Mr. Watkinson will have\nnone of him. \"The actual life of Goethe,\" he tells us, \"was seriously\ndefective.\" Perhaps so, and the same might have been said of hundreds\nof Christian teachers who lived when he did, had they been big enough\nto have their lives written for posterity. Goethe's fault was a too\ninflammable heart, and with the license of his age, which was on the\nwhole remarkably pious, he courted more than one pretty woman; or, if\nthe truth must be told, he did not repel the pretty women who threw\nthemselves at him. But there were thousands of orthodox men who acted in\nthe same way. The distinctive fact about Goethe is that he kept a high\nartistic ideal always before him, and cultivated his poetic gifts\nwith tireless assiduity. His sensual indulgences were never allowed to\ninterfere with his great aim in life, and surely that is something. The\nresult is that the whole world is the richer for his labors, and only\nthe Watkinsons can find any delight in dwelling on the failings he\npossessed in common with meaner mortals. To say that Goethe should be\n\"an object of horror to the whole self-respecting world\" is simply to\nindulge in the twang of the tabernacle.\n\nCarlyle is the next sinner; but, curiously, the _Rock_, while praising\nMr. Watkinson's lecture, says that \"Carlyle ought not to be classed with\nthe sceptics.\" We dissent from the _Rock_ however; and we venture to\nthink that Carlyle's greatest fault was a paltering with himself\non religious subjects. His intellect rejected more than his tongue\ndisowned. Mr. Watkinson passes a very different criticism. Taking\nCarlyle as a complete sceptic, he proceeds to libel him by a process\nwhich always commends itself to the preachers of the gospel of charity.\nHe picks from Mr. Froude's four volumes a number of tid-bits, setting\nforth Carlyle's querulousness, arrogance, and domestic storms with Mrs.\nCarlyle. Behold the man! exclaims Mr. Watkinson. Begging his pardon,\nit is not the man at all. Carlyle was morbidly sensitive by nature,\nhe suffered horribly from dyspepsia, and intense literary labor, still\nfurther deranging his nerves, made him terribly irritable. But he had a\nfine side to his nature, and even a sunny side. Friends like Professor\nTyndall, Professor Norton, Sir James Stephen, and Mrs. Gilchrist, saw\nCarlyle in a very different light from Mr. Froude's. Besides, Mrs.\nCarlyle made her own choice. She deliberately married a man of genius,\nwhom she recognised as destined to make a heavy mark on his age. She had\nher man of genius, and he put his life into his books. And what a life!\nAnd what books! The sufficient answer to all the Watkinson tribe is to\npoint to Carlyle's thirty volumes. This is the man. Such work implies\na certain martyrdom, and those who stood beside him should not have\ncomplained so lustily that they were scorched by the fire. Carlyle did a\ngiant's work, and he had a right to some failings. Freethinkers see them\nas well as Mr. Watkinson, but they are aware that no man is perfect,\nand they do not hold up Carlyle, or any other sceptic, as a model for\nuniversal imitation.\n\nMr. Watkinson's remarks on George Eliot are simply brutal. She was a\n\"wanton.\" She \"lived in free-love with George Henry Lewes.\" She had\nno excuse for her \"license.\" She was \"full of insincerity, cant, and\nhypocrisy.\" And so on _ad nauseam_. To call Mr. Watkinson a liar would\nbe to descend to his level. Let us simply look at the facts. George\nEliot lived with George Henry Lewes as his wife. She had no vagrant\nattachments. Her connection with Lewes only terminated with his death.\nWhy then did they not marry? Because Lewes's wife was still living, and\nthe pious English law would not allow a divorce unless all the household\nsecrets were dragged before a gaping public. George Eliot consulted her\nown heart instead of social conventions. She became a mother to\nLewes's children, and a true wife to him, though neither a priest nor a\nregistrar blessed their union. She chose between the law of custom\nand the higher law, facing the world's frown, and relying on her own\nstrength to bear the consequences of her act. To call such a woman a\nwanton and a kept mistress is to confess one's self devoid of sense and\nsensibility. Nor does it show much insight to assert that \"infidelity\nbetrayed and wrecked her life,\" and to speculate how glorious it might\nhave been if she had \"found Jesus.\" It will be time enough to listen\nto this strain when Mr. Watkinson can show us a more \"glorious\" female\nwriter in the Christian camp.\n\nWilliam Godwin is the next Freethinker whom Mr. Watkinson calls up for\njudgment. All the brave efforts of the author of _Political Justice_\nin behalf of freedom and progress are quietly ignored. Mr. Watkinson\ncomments, in a true vein of Christian charity, on the failings of his\nold age, censures his theoretical disrespect for the marriage laws,\nand inconsistently blames him for his inconsistency in marrying Mary\nWoolstonecraft. Of that remarkable woman he observes that scepticism\n\"destroyed in her all that fine, pure feeling which is the glory of the\nsex.\" But the only proof he vouchsafes of this startling statement is\na single sentence from one of her letters, which Mr. Watkinson\nmisunderstands, as he misunderstands so many passages in Carlyle's\nletters, through sheer inability to comprehend the existence of such a\nthing as humor. He takes every jocular expression as perfectly serious,\nbeing one of those uncomfortable persons in whose society, as Charles\nLamb said, you must always speak on oath. Mr. Watkinson's readers might\nalmost exclaim with Hamlet, \"How absolute the knave is! We must speak by\nthe card, or equivocation will undo us.\"\n\nThe next culprit is Shelley, who, we are told, \"deserted his young wife\nand children in the most shameful and heartless fashion.\" It does not\nmatter to Mr. Watkinson that Shelley's relations with Harriet are still\na perplexing problem, or that when they parted she and the children\nwere well provided for, Nor does he condescend to notice the universal\nconsensus of opinion among those who were in a position to be informed\non the subject, that Harriet's suicide, more than two years afterwards,\nhad nothing to do with Shelley's \"desertion.\" Instead of referring to\nproper authorities, Mr. Watkinson advises his readers to consult\n\"Mr. Jeafferson's painstaking volumes on the _Real Shelley_.\" Mr.\nJeafferson's work is truly painstaking, but it is the work of an\nadvocate who plays the part of counsel for the prosecution. Hunt,\nPeacock, Hogg, Medwin, Lady Shelley, Rossetti, and Professor\nDowden--these are the writers who should be consulted. Shelley was but\na boy when Harriet Westbrook proposed to run away with him. Had he\nacted like the golden youth of his age, and kept her for a while as\nhis mistress, there would have been no scandal. His father, in fact,\ndeclared that he would hear nothing of marriage, but he would keep as\nmany illegitimate children as Shelley chose to get. It was the intense\nchivalry of Shelley's nature that turned a very simple affair into a\npathetic tragedy. Mr. Watkinson's brutal methods of criticism are out\nof place in such a problem. He lacks insight, subtlety, delicacy of\nfeeling, discrimination, charity, and even an ordinary sense of justice.\n\nJames Mill is another flagrant sinner. Mr. Watkinson goes to the length\nof blaming him because \"his temper was constitutionally irritable,\" as\nthough he constructed himself. Here, again, Mr. Watkinson's is a purely\ndebit account. He ignores James Mill's early sacrifices for principle,\nhis strenuous labor for what he considered the truth, and his intense\ndevotion to the education of his children. His temper was undoubtedly\naustere, but it is more than possible that this characteristic was\nderived from his forefathers, who had been steeped in the hardest\nCalvinism.\n\nJohn Stuart Mill was infatuated with Mrs. Taylor, whom he married when\nshe became a widow. But Mr. Watkinson conceals an important fact. He\ntalks of \"selfish pleasure\" and \"indulgence,\" but he forgets to tell\nhis readers that Mrs. Taylor was _a confirmed invalid_. It is perfectly\nobvious, therefore, that Mill was attracted by her mental qualities;\nand it is easy to believe Mill when he disclaims any other relation\nthan that of affectionate friendship. No one but a Watkinson could be so\nfoolish as to imagine that men seek sensual gratification in the society\nof invalid ladies.\n\nHarriet Martineau is \"one of the unloveliest female portraits ever\ntraced.\" Mr. Watkinson is the opposite of a ladies' man. Gallantry was\nnever his foible. He hates female Freethinkers with a perfect hatred. He\npours out on Harriet Martineau his whole vocabulary of abuse. But it is,\nafter all, difficult to see what he is in such a passion about. Harriet\nMartineau had no sexual sins, no dubious relations, no skeleton in\nthe domestic cupboard. But, says Mr. Watkinson, she was arrogant and\ncensorious. Oh, Watkinson, Watkinson! have you not one man's share of\nthose qualities yourself? Is there not \"a sort of a smack, a smell to\"\nof them in your godly constitution?\n\nWe need not follow Mr. Watkinson's nonsense about \"the domestic shrine\nof Schopenhauer,\" who was a gay and festive bachelor to the day of his\ndeath. As for Mr. Watkinson's treatment of Comte, it is pure Christian;\nin other words, it contains the quintessence of uncharitableness. Comte\nhad a taint of insanity, which at one time necessitated his confinement.\nThat he was troublesome to wife and friends is not surprising, but\nsurely a man grievously afflicted with a cerebral malady is not to be\njudged by ordinary standards. Comte's genius has left its mark on the\nnineteenth century; he was true to _that_ in adversity and poverty. This\nis the fact posterity will care to remember when the troubles of his\nlife are buried in oblivion.\n\nMr. Watkinson turns his attention next to the French Revolution,\nwhich he considers \"as much a revolt against morals as it was against\ndespotism.\" If that is his honest opinion, he must be singularly\nignorant. The moral tone of the Revolutionists was purity itself\ncompared with the flagrant profligacy of the court, the aristocracy, and\nthe clergy, while Freethinkers were imprisoned, and heretics were broken\non the wheel. We have really no time to give Mr. Watkinson lessons in\nFrench history, so we leave him to study it at his leisure.\n\nIt was natural that Voltaire should come in for his share of slander.\nAll Mr. Watkinson can see in him is that he wrote \"an unseemly poem,\"\nby which we presume he means _La Pucelle_. But he ought to know that the\ngrosser parts of that poem were added by later hands, as may be seen at\na glance in any variorum edition. In any case, to estimate Voltaire's\n_Pucelle_ by the moral standard of a century later is to show an\nabsolute want of judgment. Let it be compared with similar works of\n_his_ age, and it will not appear very heinous. But Voltaire did a great\ndeal besides the composition of that poem. He fought despotism like a\nhero, he stabbed superstition to the heart, he protected the victims\nof ecclesiastical and political tyranny at the risk of his own life, he\nsheltered with exquisite generosity a multitude of orphans and widows,\nhe assisted every genius who was trodden down by the age. These things,\nand the great mass of his brilliant writings, will live in the memory of\nmankind. Voltaire was not perfect; he shared some of the failings of his\ngeneration. But he fought the battle of freedom and justice for sixty\nyears. Other men indulged in gallantry, other men wrote free verses. But\nwhen Calas was murdered by the priests, and his family desolated, it was\nVoltaire, and Voltaire alone, who faced the tyrants and denounced them\nin the name of humanity. His superb attitude on that critical occasion\ninspired the splendid eulogium of Carlyle, who was no friendly witness:\n\"The whole man kindled into one divine blaze of righteous indignation,\nand resolution to bring help against the world.\"\n\n\n\n\nARE ATHEISTS CRUEL? *\n\n     * April 26,1891.\n\nThere seems to be an ineradicable malignancy in the heart of\nprofessional Christianity. St. Paul, indeed in a fine passage of his\nfirst epistle to the Corinthians, speaks with glowing eloquence of\nthe \"charity\" which \"thinketh no evil.\" But the hireling advocates and\nchampions of Christianity have ever treated the apostle's counsel with\ncontempt in their dealings with sceptics and heretics. Public discussion\nis avoided by these professors of the gospel of love and practisers of\nthe gospel of hatred. They find it \"unprofitable.\" Consequently they\nneglect argument and resort to personalities. They frequently insinuate,\nand when it is safe they openly allege, that all who do not share their\nopinions are bad husbands, bad fathers, bad citizens, and bad men. Thus\nthey cast libellous dust in the eyes of their dupes, and incapacitate\nthem from seeing the real facts of the case for themselves. A notable\nillustration of this evil principle may be found in a recent speech by\nthe Bishop of Chester. Dr. Jayne presided at a Town Hall meeting of the\nlocal branch of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to\nChildren, and took advantage of the occasion to slander a considerable\nsection of his fellow citizens. With a pious arrogance which is peculiar\nto his boastful faith, he turned what should have been a humanitarian\nassembly into a receptacle for his discharge of insolent fanaticism.\nParentage is a natural fact, and the love of offspring is a well-nigh\nuniversal law of animal life. It would seem, therefore, that a Society\nfor preventing cruelty to children by parents of perverted instincts,\nmight live aloof from sectarian squabbles. But the Bishop of Chester\nis of a different opinion. He is a professional advocate of one form of\nfaith, and his eye is strictly bent on business. He appears to be unable\nto talk anything but \"shop.\" Even while pressing the claims of poor,\nneglected, ill-used children on the sympathy and assistance of a\ngenerous public, he could not refrain from insulting all those who have\nno love for his special line of business. And the insult was not only\ngratuitous; it was groundless, brutal, and malignant; so much so,\nindeed, that we cherish a hope that the Bishop has overreached himself,\nand that his repulsive slander will excite a re-action in favor of the\nobjects of his malice.\n\nDr. Jayne told the meeting that \"the persons who were most liable to be\nguilty of cruelty to their children were those artisans who had taken up\nSecularist opinions, and who looked upon their children as a nuisance,\nand were glad to get them out of the way.\"\n\nNow, on the face of it, the statement is positively grotesque in its\nabsurdity. If Secular principles tend to make parents hate their own\nchildren, why should their evil influence be confined to artisans? And\nif Secular principles do not produce parental hatred in the wealthier\nclasses, why does Dr. Jayne hurl this disgraceful accusation at the\npoorer class of unbelievers? It cannot be simply because they are\npoorer, for he was delighted to know that \"poverty by no means\nnecessarily meant cruelty.\" What, then, is the explanation? It seems to\nus very obvious. Dr. Jayne was bent on libelling sceptics, and, deeming\nit _safer_ to libel the _poorer_ ones, he tempered his valor with a\nconvenient amount of discretion. He is not even a brave fanatic. His\nbigotry is crawling, cowardly, abject, and contemptible.\n\nDr. Jayne relied upon the authority of Mr. Waugh, who happened to be\npresent at the meeting. This gentleman jumped up in the middle of the\nBishop's speech, and said \"it was the case, that the class most guilty\nof cruelty to children were those who took materialistic, atheistic,\nselfish and wicked views of their own existence.\" Surely this is a \"fine\nderangement of epitaphs.\" It suggests that Mr. Waugh is less malignant\nthan foolish. What connection does he discover between Secularism and\nselfishness? Is it in our principles, in our objects, or in our policy?\nDoes he really imagine that the true character of any body of men and\nwomen is likely to be written out by a hostile partisan? Such a person\nmight be a judge of our _public_ actions, and we are far from denying\nhis right to criticise them; but when he speaks of our _private_ lives,\nbefore men of his own faith, and without being under the necessity of\nadducing a single scrap of evidence, it is plain to the most obtuse\nintelligence that his utterances are perfectly worthless.\n\nWe have as much right as Mr. Waugh to ask the world to accept our view\nof the private life of Secularists. That is, we have no right at all.\nNevertheless we have a right to state our experience and leave the\nreader to form his own opinion. Having entered the homes of many\nSecularists, we have been struck with their fondness for children The\ndanger lies, if it lies anywhere, in their tendency to \"spoil\" them. It\nis a curious fact--and we commend it to the attention of Dr. Jayne and\nMr. Waugh--that the most sceptical country in Europe is the one where\nchildren are the best treated, and where there is no need for a Society\nto save them from the clutches of cruelty. There is positively a\nchild-cultus in the great French cities, and especially in Freethinking\nParis. In this Bible-and-beer-loving land the workman, like his social\n\"superior,\" stands or sits drinking in a public-house with male cronies;\nbut the French workman usually sits at the _cafe_ table with his wife,\nand on Sundays with his children, and takes his drink, whatever it may\nbe, under the restraining eyes of those before whom a man is least ready\nto debase himself.\n\nOne Secular home, at least, is known to us intimately. It is the home\nof the present writer, who for the moment drops the editorial \"we\" and\nspeaks in the first person My children are the children of an Atheist,\nyet if they do not love me as heartily as Dr. Jayne's or Mr. Waugh's\nchildren love their father, \"there's witchcraft in it.\" There is no rod,\nand no punishment in my home. We work with the law of love. Striking\na child is to me a loathsome idea. I shrink from it as I would from a\nphysical pollution. Strike a child once, be brutal to it once, and there\nis gone forever that look of perfect trust in the child's eyes, which is\na parent's dearest possession, and which I would not forfeit for all the\nprizes in the world.\n\nI know Christians who are less kind to their children than I am to mine.\nThey are not my natural inferiors. Humanity forbid that I should play\nthe Pharisee! But they are degraded below their natural level by the\nghastly notion of parental \"authority\" I do not say there are no rights\nin a family. There _are_; and there are also duties. But all the rights\nbelong to the children, and all the duties belong to the parents.\n\nPersonally I am not fond of talking about myself. Still less am I\nanxious to make a public exhibition of my home. But if the Dr. Jaynes\nand the Mr. Waughs of the Christian world provoke comparisons, I have\nno fear of standing with my little ones opposite them with theirs, and\nletting the world judge between us.\n\nDropping again into the editorial style, we have a question to ask of\nthe Bishop of Chester, or rather of Mr. Waugh. It is this. Where are\nthe statistics to justify your assertion? Men who are sent to gaol, for\nwhatever reason, have their religions registered. Give us, then, the\ntotal number of convictions your Society has obtained, and the precise\nproportion of Secularists among the offenders. And be careful to give us\ntheir names and the date and place of their conviction.\n\nWe have a further word to all sorts and conditions of libellous\nChristians. Where are the evidences of Atheistic cruelty? The humanest\nof the Roman emperors were those who were least under the sway of\nreligion. Julius Caesar himself, the \"foremost man of all this world,\"\nwho was a professed Atheist, was also the most magnanimous victor that\never wore the purple. Akbar, the Freethinker, was the noblest ruler of\nIndia. Frederick the Great was kind and just to his subjects. But, on\nthe other hand, who invented and who applied such instruments of cruelty\nas racks, wheels, and thumbscrews? Who invented separate tortures\nfor every part of the sensitive frame of man? Who burnt heretics? Who\nroasted or drowned millions of \"witches\"? Who built dungeons and filled\nthem? Who brought forth cries of agony from honest men and women that\nrang to the tingling stars? Who burnt Bruno? Who spat filth over the\ngraves of Paine and Voltaire? The answer is one word--Christians.\nYet with all this blood on their hands, and all this crime on their\nconsciences, they turn round and fling the epithet of \"cruel\" at the\nperennial victims of their malice.\n\n\n\n\nARE ATHEISTS WICKED?\n\nOne of the most effective arts of priestcraft has been the\nmisrepresentation and slander of heretics. To give the unbeliever a bad\nname is to prejudice believers against all communication with him.\nBy this means a twofold object is achieved; first, the faithful are\nprotected from the contagion of scepticism; secondly, the notion is\npropagated that there is something essentially immoral involved in, or\nattendant upon, unorthodox opinions; and thus the prevalent religious\nideas of the age become associated with the very preservation and\nstability of the moral order of human society.\n\nThis piece of trickery cannot, of course, be played upon the students\nof civilisation, who, as Mill remarked, are aware that many of the most\nvaluable contributions to human improvement have been the work of men\nwho knew, and rejected, the Christian faith. But it easily imposes on\nthe multitude, and it will never be abandoned until it ceases to be\nprofitable.\n\nSometimes it takes the form of idle stories about the death-beds of\nFreethinkers, who are represented as deploring their ill-spent life, and\nbewailing the impossibility of recalling the wicked opinions they have\nput into circulation. At other times it takes the form of exhibiting\ntheir failings, without the slightest reference to their virtues, as\nthe sum and substance of their character. When these methods are not\nsufficient, recourse is had to insinuation. Particular sceptics\nare spared perhaps, but Freethinkers are depicted--like the poor in\nTennyson's \"Northern Farmer\"--as bad in the lump. It is broadly hinted\nthat it is a moral defect which prevents them from embracing the popular\ncreed; that they reject what they do not wish to believe; that they hate\nthe restraints of religion, and therefore reject its principles; that\ntheir unbelief, in short, is only a cloak for sensual indulgence or an\nexcuse for evading irksome obligations.\n\nWe are so accustomed to this monstrous theory of scepticism in religious\ncircles, that it did not astonish us, or give us the least surprise, to\nread the following paragraph in the _Christian Commonwealth_--\n\n\"Free Life, and No Compulsory Virtue, was the title of a placard borne\nby a pamphlet seller of the public highway a few days ago. What the\ncontents of the pamphlets were we do not know, but the title is a\nsuggestive sign of the times, and a rather more than usually plain\nstatement of what a good deal of modern doubt amounts to. Lord Tennyson\nwas severely taken to task a few years ago for making the Atheist a\nvillain in his 'Promise of May,' but he was about right. Much of the\ndoubt of the day is only an outcome of the desire to discredit and throw\noff the restraints of religion and moral law in the name of freedom,\nwrongly used. Free love, free life, free divorce, free Sundays, in the\nmajority of cases, are but synonyms for license. Those who hold the\nDarwinian doctrine of descent from a kind of ape may yet see it proved\nby a reversion to the beast, if men succeed in getting all the false and\npernicious freedom they want.\"\n\nNow, in reply to this paragraph, we have first to observe that our\ncontemporary takes Lord Tennyson's name in vain. The villain of the\n\"Promise of May\" is certainly an Agnostic, but are not the villains of\nmany other plays Christians? Lord Tennyson does not make the rascal's\nwickedness the logical result of his principles; indeed, although\nour contemporary seems ignorant of the fact, he disclaimed any such\nintention, A press announcement was circulated by his eldest son, on\nhis behalf, that the rascal was meant to be a sentimentalist and\nne'er-do-well, who, whatever his opinions, would have come to a bad end.\nWhen the _Commonwealth_, therefore, talks of Lord Tennyson as \"about\nright,\" it shows, in a rather vulgar way, the danger of incomplete\ninformation. Were we to copy its manners we might use a swifter phrase.\n\nThat Atheists, in the name of freedom, throw off the restraints of moral\nlaw, is a statement which we defy the _Commonwealth_ to prove, or in\nthe slightest degree to support, and we will even go to the length of\nsuggesting how it might undertake the task.\n\nTurpitude of character must betray itself. Moral corruption can no more\nbe hidden than physical corruption. Wickedness \"will out,\" like murder\nor smallpox. A man's wife discovers it; his children shun him instead of\nclinging about his knees; his neighbors and acquaintances eye him with\nsuspicion or dislike; his evil nature pulsates through an ever-widening\ncircle of detection, and in time nis bad passions are written upon his\nfeatures in the infallible lines of mouth and eyes and face. How easy,\nthen, it should be to pick out these Atheists. The most evil-looking\nmen should belong to that persuasion. But do they? We invite our\ncontemporary to a trial. Let it inquire the religious opinions of a\ndozen or two, and see if there is an Atheist among them.\n\nAgain, a certain amount of evil disposition _must_ produce a certain\npercentage of criminal conduct. Accordingly the gaols should contain a\nlarge proportion of Atheists. But _do_ they? Statistics prove they do\n_not_. When the present writer was imprisoned for \"blasphemy,\" and was\nasked his religion, he answered \"None,\" to the wide-eyed astonishment\nof the official who put the question. Atheists were scarce in the\nestablishment. Catholics were there, and red tickets were on their\ncell-doors; Protestants were there, and white tickets marked their\napartments; Jews were there, and provision was made for their special\nobservances; but the Atheist was the _rara avis_, the very phoenix of\nHolloway Gaol.\n\nLet us turn to another method of investigation. During the last ten\nyears four members have been expelled from the House of Commons. One of\nthem was not expelled in the full sense of the word; he was, however,\nthrust by brute force from the precincts of the House. His name was\nCharles Bradlaugh, and he was an Atheist. But what was his crime? Simply\nthis: he differed from his fellow members as to his competence to take\nthe parliamentary oath, and the ultimate event proved that he was\nright and they were wrong. Now what were the crimes of the three other\nmembers, who were completely and absolutely expelled? Captain Verney was\nfound guilty of procuration for seduction, Mr. Hastings was found guilty\nof embezzlement, and Mr. De Cobain was pronounced guilty of evading\njustice, while charged with unnatural offences. Mr. Jabez Spencer\nBalfour might also have been expelled, if he had not accepted the\nChiltern Hundreds. Now all these _real_ delinquents were Christians, and\neven ostentatious Christians. Compare them with Charles Bradlaugh,\nthe Atheist, and say which side has the greatest cause for shame and\nhumiliation.\n\nAre Atheists conspicuous in the Divorce Court? Is it not Christian\nreputations that are smirched in that Inquisition? Do Atheists, or any\nspecies of unbelievers, appear frequently before the public as promoters\nof bubble companies, and systematic robbers of orphans and widows? Is it\nnot generally found, in the case of great business collapses, that\nthe responsible persons are Christians? Is it not a fact that their\nprofession of Christianity is usually in proportion to the depth of\ntheir rascality?\n\nNot long since the Bishop of Chester, backed up by Mr. Waugh, of the\nSociety for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, publicly declared\nthat the worst ill-users of little ones were artisan Secularists. He\nwas challenged to give evidence of the assertion, but he preferred to\nmaintain what is called \"a dignified silence.\" Mr. Waugh was challenged\nto produce proofs from the Society's archives, and he also declined. It\nis enough to affirm infamy against Freethinkers; proof is unnecessary;\nor, rather, it is unobtainable. Singularly, there have been several\nstriking cases of brutal treatment of children since Mr. Waugh and\nBishop Jayne committed themselves to this indefensible assertion, and in\nno instance was the culprit a Secularist, though some of them, including\nMrs. Montagu, were devout Christians.\n\nThere are other methods of inquiry into the wickedness of Atheists,\nbut we have indicated enough to set the _Commonwealth_ at work, and we\ninvite it to begin forthwith. And while it is getting ready we beg to\nobserve that theologians have always described \"free-dem\" as \"license,\"\nwhereas it is nothing of the kind. Freedom is the golden mean between\nlicense and slavery. The breaking of arbitrary fetters, forged by\nignorance and intolerance, does not mean a fall into loose living.\nThe heretic in religion, while resenting outside control, by his very\nperception of the vast and far-reaching consequences of human action, is\noften chained to \"the most timid sanctities of life.\"\n\nWith respect to \"the Darwinian theory of descent from a kind of ape,\"\nwe have a word for our contemporary. The annual meeting of the British\nAssociation was held at Oxford in 1860. Darwin's _Descent of Man_ had\nrecently been published, and the air was full of controversy. Bishop\nWilberforce, in the course of a derisive speech, turned to Professor\nHuxley and asked whether it was on the mother's or father's side that\nhis grandfather had been an ape. Huxley replied that man had no reason\nto be ashamed of having an ape for a grandfather. \"If there is an\nancestor,\" he continued, \"whom I should feel shame in recalling it\nwould be a _man_\"--one who meddled with scientific questions he did not\nunderstand, only to obscure them by aimless rhetoric, and indulgence in\n\"eloquent digressions and appeals to religious prejudice.\" This\nrebuke was administered thirty-three years ago, but it is still worth\nremembering, and perhaps the _Commonwealth_ may find in it something\napplicable to itself.\n\n\n\n\nRAIN DOCTORS.\n\nThe prolonged drought has already inflicted serious injury on the\nfarmers. They are, as a rule, a loyal class of men, but their loyalty\nwill probably be shaken when they realise that the Lord has spoiled\ntheir crops to provide Queen's weather for the Jubilee. An occasional\nshower might wet the Queen's parasol or ruffle the plumage of the\nprinces and princelings in her train. Occasional showers, however, are\njust what the farmers want. The Lord was therefore in a fix. Though the\nBible says that with him nothing is impossible, he was unable to please\nboth sides; so he favored the one he loved best, gave royalty unlimited\nsunshine, and played the deuce with the agricultural interest.\n\nPossibly the Lord knows better than we do, but we venture to suggest\nthat a slight exercise of intelligence, though we admit it may have\nbeen a strain upon his slumbrous brain, would have surmounted the\ndifficulty. The windows of heaven might have been opened from two till\nfour in the morning. That would have been sufficient for a proper supply\nof rain, and the whole of the day could have been devoted to \"blazing\"\nwithout injuring anyone. Or, if the early morning rain would have\ndamaged the decorations, the celestial turnkey might have kept us a week\nwithout water giving us an extra supply beforehand. On the whole, if\nwe may hazard so profane an observation, the powers above are singularly\nbehind the age. Their affairs are frightfully mixed, and the result is\nthat capital and labor are both in a state of uncertainty. The celestial\ndynasty will have to improve, or its imperial power will be questioned,\nand there will be a demand for Home Rule with regard to the weather. It\nis a perfect nuisance, with respect to a matter which vitally affects\nus, not to be able to know what a day will bring forth.\n\nMeanwhile we turn to the clergy, and inquire why they do not perform\ntheir professional duties in this emergency. There is a form of prayer\nfor such cases in the Prayer-book. Why has it not been used? Do the\nclergy think the Lord is growing deaf with old age? Have they a secret\nsuspicion that praying for a change of weather is as useful as whistling\nfor the wind? Or has the spirit of this sceptical age invaded the\nclerical ranks so thoroughly as to make them ashamed of their printed\ndoctrines? When a parish clerk was told by the parson one morning that\nthe prayer for rain would be read, he replied, \"Why, sir, what's the\nuse of praying for rain with the wind in that quarter?\" We fancy that\nparish clerk must have a good many sympathisers in the pulpit.\n\nStill the clergy should do what they are paid for, or resign the\nbusiness. They are our rain doctors, and they should procure us the\nprecious fluid. If they cannot, why should we pay them a heavenly\nwater-rate? The rain doctors of savages are kept to their contract. They\nare expected to bring rain when it is required, and if they do not,\nthe consequences are unpleasant. They are sometimes disgraced, and\noccasionally killed. But the rain doctors in civilised countries retain\nall the advantages of their savage prototypes without any of their risks\nand dangers. Modern Christians allow the clergy to play on the principle\nof \"heads I win, tails you lose.\" If the black regiments pray and there\nis no answer, Christians resign themselves to the will of God. If there\n_is_ an answer, they put it to the credit of the priests, or the priests\nput it to their own credit, which is much the same thing.\n\nWe should be sorry to charge such a holy body of men with duplicity, but\nis there not \"a sort of a smack, a smell to?\" They are reluctant to\npray for rain, on the alleged ground that Omnipotence should not be\ninterfered with rashly. But the sincerity of this plea is questionable\nwhen we reflect that it obviously favors the clergy. Our climate is\nvariable, long spells of particular weather are infrequent, and if when\none occurs the clergy hold back till the very last, their supplication\nfor a change cannot long remain unanswered. But perhaps this is only an\nillustration of the wisdom of the serpent which Jesus recommended to his\napostles.\n\nIf the clergy are anxious to exhibit their powers they should pray\nfor rain in the desert of Sahara. Missionaries might be sent out to\nestablish praying stations, and in the course of time the desert might\nbloom as a garden, and the wilderness as a rose. We make the suggestion\nin all sincerity. We are anxious to be convinced, if conviction is\npossible. Praying for rain in a watery climate is one thing, praying for\nrain where none ever falls is another. If the clergy can bring down a\nfruitful shower on the African sands, we shall cry, \"A miracle,\" and\nsend them a quarter's pew-rent.\n\nSeriously--for we can be serious--we ask the clergy to do their level\nbest. The farmers are swearing wholesale, and by taking the name of the\nLord their God in vain they incur the peril of eternal damnation.\nThe fruit crop is injured, and children suffer unusually from the\nstomach-ache. Worst of all, infidel France is flooding our markets with\ncherries and other fruits, and we are supporting the accursed sceptical\nbrood because the Lord has not nourished our own growths. Surely then it\nis time to act. If the parsons lose this fine opportunity they may\nrely on it that the anti-tithe agitation will develop into alarming\nproportions. Their livings are at stake, and we ask them to consider\nthe interests of their wives and families. If our generous warning is\nunheeded the clergy may find the nation carrying out the principle of\nfree trade in religion, and importing some rain doctors from Africa.\nMany of these magical blackmen would be glad to exchange their\npresent pickings for a vicarage and five hundred a year. If they\nthought there was a chance of obtaining a bishopric, with a palace and\nsix or ten thousand a year, they would start for England at once. Many\nof them are of excellent reputation, and would come to us with the best\nof testimonials. Would it not be well to give them a trial? We should\nfind out who was best at the business. He might be constituted our\nnational rain doctor at a liberal salary, and the rest discharged; for\nsurely the Lord does not require thirty thousand praying to him at once,\nunless on the principle that he must be surrounded to prevent the prayer\nfrom going into one ear and out at the other.\n\n\n\n\nPIOUS PUERILITIES.\n\nFaith and credulity are the same thing with different names. When a man\nhas plenty of faith he is ready to believe anything. However fantastic\nit may be, however childish, however infantile, he accepts it with\ngaping wonder. His imagination is not necessarily strong, but it is\neasily excited. Macaulay held that savages have stronger imaginations\nthan civilised men, and that as the reason developes the imagination\ndecays. But, in our opinion, he was mistaken. The imagination does not\nwither under the growth of reason; on the contrary, it flourishes\nmore strongly. It is, however, disciplined by reason, and guided by\nknowledge; and it only appears to be weaker because the relation between\nit and other faculties has changed. The imagination of the savage\nseems powerful because his other faculties are weak. In the absence of\nknowledge it cuts the most astonishing capers, just as a bird would if\nit were suddenly deprived of sight. Now the savage is a mental child,\nand the ignorant and thoughtless are mental savages. They credit the\nabsurdest stories, and indulge in the most ridiculous speculations. When\nreligion ministers to their weakness, as it always does, they gravely\ndiscuss the most astonishing puerilities. Indeed, the history of\nreligious thought--that is, of the infantile vagaries of the human\nmind--is full of puerilites. There is hardly an absurdity which learned\ndivines have not debated as seriously as scientists discuss the nebular\nhypothesis or the evolution theory. They have argued how many angels\ncould dance on the point of a needle; whether Adam had a navel; whether\nghosts and demons could cohabit with women; whether animals could\nsin; and what was to be done with a rat that devoured a holy wafer. We\nbelieve the decision of the last weighty problem, after long debate, was\nthat the rat, having the body of Christ in its body, was sanctified, and\nthat it had to be eaten by the priest, by which means the second person\nof the Trinity was saved from desecration.\n\nBut of all the pious puerilities on record, probably the worst are\nascribed to the rabbis. The faith of those gentlemen was unbounded,\nand they were so fond of trivialities, that where they found none they\nmanufactured them. The rabbis belonged to the most credulous race of\nantiquity. \"Tell that to the Jews,\" as we see from Juvenal, was as\ncommon as our saying, \"Tell that to the marines.\" The chosen people were\ninfinitely superstitious. They had no head for science, nor have they\nto this day; but they were past-masters in every magical art, and\nconnoisseurs in amulets and charms. Their rabbis were the hierophants\nof their fanatical folly. They devoted amazing industry, and sometimes\nremarkable ingenuity, to its development; frequently glossing the very\nscriptures of their religion with dexterious imbecilities that raise\na sinister admiration in the midst of our laughter. This propensity is\nmost noticeable in connection with Bible stories. When the chroniclers\nand prophets record a good solemn wonder, which reads as though it ought\nto be true if it is not, they allege or suggest little additions that\ngive it an air of ostentatious silliness. Hundreds of such instances\nhave come under my eyes in foraging for extra-Biblical matter for my\n_Bible Heroes_, but I have only room for one or two specimens.\n\nKing Nimrod was jealous of young Abraham, as Herod was jealous of young\nJesus. He tried various methods to get rid of the boy, but all in\nvain. At last he resolved to burn Abraham alive. This would have made a\nstriking scene, but the pious puerility of the sequel spoils it all. The\nking issued a decree, ordering every man in his kingdom to bring wood\nto heat the kiln. What a laughable picture! Behold every adult subject\nwending his way to the crematorium with a bundle of sticks on his\nback--\"For Abraham.\" The The Mussulman tradition (Mohammedans and Jews\nare much alike, and both their religions are Semitic) informs us that\nNimrod himself died in the most extraordinary manner. A paltry little\ngnat, with a game leg and one eye, flew up his nostril, and lodged in\nhis brain, where it tormented him for five hundred years. During the\nwhole of that period, in which the gnat displayed a longevity that casts\nMethuselah's into the shade, the agonising king could only obtain repose\nby being struck on the head; and relays of men were kept at the palace\nto pound his royal skull with a blacksmith's hammer. The absurdity of\nthe story is transcendent. One is charitably tempted to believe, for the\ncredit of human nature, that it was the work of a subtle, solemn wag,\nwho thought it a safe way of satirising the proverbial thick-headedness\nof kings.\n\nWhat reader of the Bible does not remember the pathetic picture of Esau\nfalling on Jacob's neck and weeping, in a paroxysm of brotherly love and\nforgiveness? But the rabbis daub it over with their pious puerilities.\nThey solemnly inform us that Esau was a trickster, as though Jacob's\nqualities were catching? and that he tried to bite his brother's neck,\nbut God turned it into marble, and he only broke his teeth. Esau wept\nfor the pain in his grinders. But why did Jacob weep? This looks like a\nposer, yet later rabbis surmounted the difficulty. Jacob's neck was not\nturned into marble, but toughened. It was hard enough to-hurt Esau's\nteeth, and still tender enough to make Jacob suffer, so they cried in\nconcert, though for different reasons.\n\nSatyrs are mentioned in the Bible, although they never existed outside\nthe superstitious imagination. The rabbis undertook to explain the\npeculiar structure of these fabulous creatures, as well as of fauns, who\nsomewhat resemble them. The theory was started, therefore, that God was\novertaken by the Sabbath, while he was creating them, and was obliged to\npostpone finishing them till the next day. Hence they are misshapen! The\nrabbis also say that God cut off Adam's tail to make Eve of. The Bible\norigin of woman is low, but this is lower still. However, if Adam\nexchanged his tail for a wife he made a very good bargain, despite the\napple and the Devil.\n\nCaptain Noah, says the Talmud, could not take the rhinoceros into the\nark because it was too big. Rabbi Jannai solemnly asserts that he saw\na young rhinoceros, only a day old, as big as Mount Tabor. Its neck was\nthree miles long, its head half a mile, and the river Jordan was choked\nby its excrement. Let us pause at this stretcher, which \"stands well for\nhigh.\"\n\nPerhaps the Christian will join us in laughing at such pious\npuerilities. But he should remember that the Bible is loaded with\nabsurdities that are little inferior. Ravens bring a prophet sandwiches,\nanother prophet besieges a tile, an axe swims on the water, a man slays\na thousand men in battle with the jawbone of a donkey, an ass speaks,\nand a whale swallows and vomits a man. Had these pious puerilities\noccurred in any other book, they would have been laughed to scorn; but\nbeing in the Bible, they must be credited on pain of eternal damnation.\n\n\n\n\n\"THUS SAITH THE LORD.\"\n\nDogmatism, said Douglas Jerrold, is only puppyism grown to maturity.\nThis sarcastic wit never said a truer thing. We call a young fellow a\npuppy when he is conceited and impudent, and we call a man dogmatic when\nhe betrays the same qualities in controversy. Yet every Church prides\nitself on being dogmatic. Rome is dogmatic and Canterbury is dogmatic.\nWithout dogma there is no theology. And what is dogma? An opinion, or\na set of opinions, promulgated by somebody for the blind acceptance of\nsomebody else. Arrogance, therefore, is of its very essence. What right\nhas one man to say to another, \"This is the truth; I have taken the\ntrouble to decide that point, and all you have to do is to accept what I\npresent you \"? And if one man has no such right to impose his belief on\nanother, how can twenty thousand men have such a right to impose their\nbelief on twenty millions? This, however, is precisely what they do\nwithout the least shame or compunction. Before we are able to judge for\nourselves, the priests thrust certain dogmas upon us, and compel us to\nembrace them. Authority takes the place of judgment, dogmatism supplants\nthought. The young mind is rendered slavish, and as it grows up it goes\nthrough life cringeing to the instruments of its own abasement.\n\nWhen a superior mind rises from this subjection and demands reasons\nfor believing, he is knocked down with the Bible. A text is quoted to\nsilence him. But who wrote the text? Moses, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Matthew,\nJohn, Peter, or Paul. Well, and who made them lords over us? Have we not\nas much right to our own thoughts as they had to theirs? When they state\nan opinion in the pompous language of revelation, are they less fallible\nthan the rest of us? Obviously not. Yet prophets and evangelists have a\ntrick of writing, which still clings to their modern representatives, as\nthough they could not be mistaken. \"I am Sir Oracle,\" they seem to say,\n\"and when I ope my lips let no dog bark.\" No doubt this self-conceit is\nvery natural, but self-conceited people are not usually taken at their\nown estimate. Nowadays we laugh at them and try to take the conceit out\nof them. But what is absurd to-day is treated as venerable because it\nhappened thousands of years ago, and prophets are regarded as inspired\nwho, if they existed now, would be treated with ridicule and contempt.\n\nThe style of downright God-Almighty-men is very simple. They need not\nargue, they have only to assert, and they preface every statement with\n\"Thus saith the Lord.\" Now suppose such a declaration were made today.\nA man with no greater reputation for sense than his neighbors stands\nup and shouts \"Thus saith the Lord.\" Should we not look at him with\ncuriosity and amusement? Would he not strike us as a silly fanatic?\nMight we not even reflect that he was graduating for a strait-waistcoat?\nThe fellow is simply an ignorant dogmatist. What he believes you must\nbelieve. Reasons for his belief he has none, and he cannot conceive that\nyou want any either. Yet it would never do to exclaim, \"I am your lord\nand master,\" so the grown-up puppy shouts \"Thus saith the Lord,\" in\norder to assure you that in rejecting him you reject God.\n\nSuppose we heckle this loud-mouthed preacher for a minute. \"You tell us,\nThus saith the Lord. Did he say so to you, and where and when? And\nare you quite sure you did not dream the whole business?\" Probably\nhe answers, \"No, the Lord did not say it to me, but he said it to the\nblessed prophets and apostles, and I am only repeating their words.\"\n\"Very well then,\" a sensible man would reply, \"you are in the\nsecond-hand business, and I want new goods. You had better send on the\noriginal traders--Moses, Isaiah, Paul and Co.--and I'll see what I can\ndo with them.\" If, however, the preacher says, \"Yes, the Lord did say\nit to me,\" a sensible man replies, \"Well, now, I should have thought the\nLord would have told somebody with more reputation and influence. Still,\nwhat you assert may be true. I don't deny it, but at the same time your\nword is no proof. On the whole, I think I'll go my way and let you go\nyours. The Lord has told you something, and you believe it; when he\ntells me, I'll believe it too. I suppose the Lord told you because he\nwanted you to know, and when he wants me to know I suppose he'll give\nme a call. What you got from him is first-hand, what I get from you is\nsecond-hand; and, with all due respect, I fancy your authority is hardly\nequal to the Almighty's.\" \"Thus saith the Lord\" is no argument. It is\nsimply\n\n     The dark lanthorn of the spirit\n     Which none can see by but those who bear it.\n\nNay more, it dispenses with reason, and makes every man's faith depend\non somebody else's authority. Discussion becomes impertinence, criticism\nis high treason. Hence it is but a step from \"Thus saith the Lord.\"\nVery impolite language, truly, yet it is the logical sequence of\ndogmatism, Fortunately the time is nearly past for such impudent\nnonsense. This is an age of debate. And although there are many windy\nplatitudes abroad, and much indulgence in empty mouthing, the very fact\nof debate being considered necessary to the settlement of all questions\nmakes the public mind less hasty and more cautious. \"Thus saith the\nLord\" men can only succeed at present among the intellectual riff-raff\nof the populace.\n\nLooking over the past, we see what an immense part dogmatism has played\nin history. \"Thus saith the Lord\" cried the Jewish prophets, and\nthey not only terrified their contemporaries, but overawed a hundred\ngenerations. \"Thus saith the Lord\" cried the Christian apostles,\nand they converted thousands of open-mouthed slaves to a \"maleficent\nsuperstition.\" \"Thus saith the Lord\" cried Mohammed, and the scimitars\nof Islam flashed from India to Spain. \"Thus saith the Lord\" cried Joe\nSmith, and Mormonism springs up in the practical West, with its buried\ngold tablets of revelation and its retrogressive polygamy. \"Thus saith\nReason\" has been a still small voice, sometimes nearly inaudible, though\nnever quite drowned; but now it is swelling into a mighty volume of\nsound, overwhelming the din of sects and the anathemas of priests.\n\n\n\n\nBELIEVE OR BE DAMNED.\n\nChristian ministers are showing a disposition to fight shy of the second\nhalf of the last chapter of Mark, where Jesus is represented as saying\nto his apostles, \"Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to\nevery creature. He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved; but he\nthat believeth not shall be damned.\" Some of them tell us to look at the\nRevised Version, where we shall see in the margin that this portion\nof the chapter does not exist in the earliest manuscripts; and they\ninnocently expect that Freethinkers will therefore quietly drop the\noffensive passage. Oh dear no! Before they have any right to claim such\nindulgence they must put forth a new edition of the whole Bible, showing\nus what they desire excised, and what they wish to retain and are ready\nto defend as the infallible word of God. We should then discuss whether\ntheir selection is justifiable, and after that we should discuss whether\nthe amended Bible is any diviner than the original one. But we cannot\nallow them to keep the Bible as it is, to call it God's Word, to revile\npeople who doubt it, and to persecute people who oppose it; and yet, at\nthe same time, to evade responsibility for every awkward text. This will\nnever do. The clergy cannot have the authority of inspiration in their\npulpits and the ease of eclecticism on the platform and in the press.\n\nBesides, although the text in Mark is the most striking piece of\nimpudent bigotry, there are many passages of Holy Writ that display the\nsame spirit. The Jews were expressly ordered to kill heretics in this\nworld, and the victims only escaped eternal damnation because the chosen\npeople knew nothing at that time of future rewards and punishments. A\nglance at the first few pages of _Crimes of Christianity_ will also show\nthat the earliest apostles of Christianity were thoroughly imbued with\nthe spirit of persecution. Paul smote Elymas with blindness for opposing\nhim, and even \"the beloved disciple\" said \"If there come any unto you,\nand bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither\nbid him God speed.\" Paul tells the Galatians, \"If any man preach any\nother gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.\"\nThese passages plainly imply that the unbeliever is to be shunned like\npoison, and that the teacher of unbelief is a devil. What difference is\nthere between this and the passage in Mark? As a matter of fact, all the\nChristian Churches, from the beginning till now, have taught that\nfaith is necessary to salvation; and this historic consensus of opinion\njustifies the Freethinker in regarding bigotry as of the essence of the\nBible.\n\nNow what is belief? It is an automatic act of the mind, over which the\nwill has absolutely no power. The will might, indeed, turn the eyes from\nregarding evidence in a particular direction, or the entire mind from\nattending to the subject at all. But given the evidence before you, and\nyour own powers of thought, and your judgment is a logical necessity.\nYou cannot help believing what your intellect certifies as true; you\ncannot help disbelieving what your intellect certifies as false. If you\nwere threatened with everlasting torment for believing that twice two\nare four, you could not, by the most tremendous effort of volition,\nalter your conviction in the slightest degree. You might be induced to\n_assert_ that twice two are five, but whatever your tongue might utter,\nyour belief would remain unchanged.\n\nThe effect of threats, therefore, is not to change belief, but to\nproduce hypocrisy. Yet this much must be allowed. The threats may\nsucceed _if they are carried out_. Fear will make multitudes _profess_\nwithout _investigating,_ and as liars often come to believe their\nown lies, habitual profession produces a state of mind that has a\nsuperficial resemblance to real belief; and, on the other hand, if the\nthreats of future punishment are supplemented by penal laws against\nheresy, there is a process of artificial selection by which independent\nminds are eliminated, while the slavish survive. Even when penal laws\nare relaxed, social ostracism will have a similar, though perhaps\na weaker effect. Prizes offered to one form of opinion, and losses\ninflicted on others, will necessarily make a difference in their\nrelative success. How slowly Christianity advanced during the first\nthree centuries, when it was under a cloud! How swiftly it progressed\nwhen Constantine gave it wealth and privileges, and used the temporal\nsword to repress or extinguish its enemies!\n\nNothing is truer than that the religious belief of more than ninety-nine\nhundredths of mankind is determined by the geographical accident of\nbirth. Born in Spain they are Catholics; born in England they are\nProtestants; born in Turkey they are Mohammedans; born in India they are\nBrahmanists; born in Ceylon they are Buddhists; born in the shadow of a\nsynagogue they are Jews. Their own minds have not the smallest share in\ndeciding their faith. They take it at secondhand, as they do their\nlanguage and their fashion of dressing. To call their \"faith\" belief is\nabsurd. It is simply a prejudice. Belief, in the proper sense of the\nword, follows evidence and reflection. What evidence has the ordinary\nChristian, and has he ever reflected on his creed for five minutes in\nthe whole course of his life?\n\nPhilosophically speaking, men think as they _can_, and believe as they\n_must_; and as belief is independent of the will, and cannot be\naffected by motives, it is not a subject for praise or blame, reward or\npunishment. Religions, therefore, which promise heaven for belief and\nhell for unbelief, are utterly unphilosophical. They are self-condemned.\nTruth invites free study. Falsehood shuns investigation, and denounces\nthat liberty of thought which is fatal to its pretensions.\n\nThere is a not too refined, but a very true piece of verse, which was\nfirst published more than a generation ago in a pungent Freethought\njournal, and we venture to quote its conclusion. After relating the\nchief \"flams\" of the Bible, it says:\n\n     And when with this nonsense you're crammed,\n     To make you believe it all true,\n     They say if you don't you'll be damned;\n     But you ought to be damned if you do.\n\n\n\n\nCHRISTIAN CHARITY.\n\nJesus Christ told his disciples that, in bestowing alms, they were not\neven to let their left hand know what their right hand did. But\nthis self-sacrificing method has not been generally approved, and\ncomparatively few Christians \"do good by stealth and blush to find it\nfame.\" They more often \"do good for fame and publish it by stealth.\"\nNay more, their \"charity\" is actually their boast in their controversies\nwith \"infidels.\" Look at our hospitals, they say; look at our\norphanages, look at our almshouses, look at our soup-kitchens. It is\na wonder they do not boast of their asylums, but perhaps they think it\nwould invite the retort that they not only build them but fill them.\nSuch boasting, however, is utterly absurd from every point of view.\nSince the world was in any degree civilised it has never lacked some\nkind of benevolent institutions. It is absolutely certain that hospitals\nare not of Christian origin; and there is hardly a country in the world,\nwith any pretension to rank above barbarians, in which some species of\nprovision is not made by the rich for the necessities of the poor. Every\nMohammedan, for instance, is required by his religion to devote a tenth\nof his income to charity; whereas the Christian system of tithes is\nentirely for the profit and aggrandisement of the clergy.\n\nStill more ridiculous, if possible, is the Christian cry, \"Where are\nyour Freethought hospitals, almshouses, and orphanages?\" Freethought\nis a poor, struggling cause; its adherents are comparatively few and\nscattered; it has no endowments to lessen the current cost of its\npropaganda; and it is unable to exact subscriptions by the orthodox\nmethod of boycotting, or to acquire them in return for a good\nadvertisement. Still, the Freethought party does manage to relieve its\nnecessitous members; and the Freethinkers' Benevolent Fund is not only\nwell supported, in excess of all demands, but is probably the _only_\nFund which is administered without a single farthing of expense. Besides\nthis, Freethinkers support ordinary local charities, when deserving,\njust like other people; although frequently, as in the case of almost\nevery hospital, religion is forced on the recipients of such charity,\nwhether they wish it or not, and religious tests are maintained in the\nadministration.\n\nAs a rule, however, Freethinkers are not inclined to attach so much\nimportance as Christians to organised almsgiving. At the best it is but\na clumsy way of alleviating the worst effects of social disease. The\nFreethinker attaches more importance to the study of causes. He is like\nthe true health reformer who believes a great deal more in exercise,\nfresh air, and wholesome diet, than in physic. For this reason\nFreethinkers are generally students of social and political questions.\nThey are Radicals in the philosophical sense of the word; that is, they\nrecognise that real, lasting improvement can only be achieved by dealing\nwith the causes of poverty and degradation. Many Christians, on the\nother hand, thoroughly believe that the poor will never cease out of the\nland; and they seem to regard these unfortunates as whetstones, provided\nby a beneficent providence, on which the wealthy may sharpen their\nbenevolence.\n\nChristian charity, even in its highest form, is infinitely less merciful\nthan science; a truth which Mr. Cotter Morison enforces in the seventh\nchapter of his _Service of Man_. Sanitation, medical science, free\ntrade, popular education, co-operation, and such agencies, have done\ntremendously more than religion to diminish evil and mitigate suffering.\nOn the other hand, it is indisputable that much of our boasted charity\nis worse than wasted, as it tends to produce the very helplessness and\npauperism that furnish it with objects of compassion.\n\nCharity is very good in its way, but what we really want is justice. Let\nus go in for justice first, and when we have got that we shall see what\nremains for charity to do. Probably it will be found that unjust laws\ninflict a hundred times more misery than charity could ever alleviate.\nIf that be the case, the most charitable man, after all, is he who\ndevotes some of his time, thought, and energy to political and social\nreform. Good health for the next generation is more valuable than\nmedicine for the diseases of the present generation.\n\nCharity, also, in its largest sense, is far wider than almsgiving. It\nis a questionable charity which gives you a shilling if you are hard-up,\nand persecutes you if you think for yourself. Most of us do not require\nsoup-tickets, but we do require civil treatment, respect for our\nindependence, and smiling rather than frowning faces. The man who lifts\nme up from the road when I stumble, deserves my thanks; but I doubt the\nsincerity of his kindness if, when he learns that I honestly differ\nfrom him on the Atonement, he knocks me down again. Assisting people who\nagree with you, and wilfully injuring those who differ, savors less of\ncharity than of zeal. You may be a very good Christian, but I venture to\nsay you are a very bad man.\n\nWhen Saladin died he ordered charities to be distributed to the poor,\nwithout distinction of Jew, Christian, or Mohammedan. Yet this brilliant\nruler had to repel Christian attacks on his dominions, and to witness\nthe most abominable cruelty wrought by the soldiers of the Cross. Where,\nin the annals of Christendom, shall we find such a noble example of true\ncharity; of charity which overflows the petty barriers of creeds, and\nloses itself in the great ocean of humanity?\n\n\n\n\nRELIGION AND MONEY.\n\n\"Every religion is a getting religion; for though I myself get nothing,\nI am subordinate to those that do. So you may find a lawyer in the\nTemple that gets little for the present; but he is fitting himself to be\nin time one of those great ones that do get.\"--Selden's Table Talk.\n\n\"The Divine stands wrapt up in his cloud of mysteries, and the amused\nLaity must pay Tithes and Veneration to be kept in obscurity, grounding\ntheir hope of future knowledge on a competent stock of present\nignorance.\"--George Farquhar.\n\nReligion and priestcraft may not be the same thing in _essence_. That\nis a point on which we do not intend to dogmatise, and this is not the\nopportunity to argue it. But _practically_ religion and priestcraft\n_are_ the same thing. They are inextricably bound up together,. and\nthey will suffer a common fate. In saying this, however, we must\nbe understood to use the word \"religion\" in its ordinary sense, as\nsynonymous with _theology_. Religion as non-supernatural, as the\nidealism of morality, the sovereign bond of collective society, is a\nmatter with which we are not at present concerned.\n\nPriestcraft did not _invent_ religion. To believe that it did is\nthe error of an impulsive and uninformed scepticism. But priestcraft\ndeveloped it, systematised it, enforced it, and perpetuated it. This\ncould not be effected, however, except in alliance with the temporal\npower; and accordingly, in every country--savage, barbaric, or\ncivilised--the priests and the privileged classes are found in harmony.\nThey have occasional differences, but these are ultimately adjusted.\nSometimes the priesthood overrules the temporal power, but more\nfrequently the former gives way to the latter; indeed, it is instructive\nto watch how the course of religion has been so largely determined by\npolitical influences. The development of Judaism was almost entirely\ncontrolled by the political vicissitudes of the Hebrews. The political\npower really decided the great controversy between Arianism and\nAthanasianism. Politics again, twelve hundred years later, settled the\nbounds of the Reformation, not only for the moment, but for subsequent\ncenturies. Where the prince's sword was thrown into the scale, it\ndetermined the balance. England, for instance, was non-papal Catholic\nunder Henry VIII., Protestant under Edward VI., papal-Catholic under\nMary, and Protestant again under Elizabeth; although every one of these\nchanges, according to the clergy, was dictated by the Holy Ghost.\n\nPriests and the privileged classes _must_ settle their differences\nin some way, otherwise the people would become too knowing, and too\nindependent. The co-operation of impostor and robber is necessary to the\nbamboozlement and exploitation of the masses. This co-operation, indeed,\nis the great secret of the permanence of religion; and its policy is\ntwofold--education and the power of money.\n\nThe value of _education_ may be inferred from the frantic efforts of the\nclergy to build and maintain schools of their own, and to force their\ndoctrines into the schools built and maintained by the State. In this\nrespect there is nothing to choose between Church and Dissent.\nThe reading of the Bible in Board schools is a compromise between\nthemselves, lest a worse thing should befall them both. If one section\nwere strong enough to upset the compromise it would do so; in fact,\nthe Church party is now attempting this stroke of policy on the London\nSchool Board, with the avowed object of giving a Church color to-the\nreligious teaching of the children. The very same principle was at\nwork in former days, when none but Churchmen were admitted to the\nuniversities or public positions. It was a splendid means of maintaining\nthe form of religion which was bound up with the monarchy and the\naristocracy. Learning and influence were, as far as possible, kept on\nthe side of the established faith, which thus became the master of\nthe masters of the people. This is perfectly obvious to the student of\nhistory, and Freethinkers should lay its lesson to heart. It is only by\ndriving religion entirely out of education, from the humblest school to\nthe proudest college, that we shall ever succeed in breaking the power\nof priestcraft and freeing the people from the bondage of superstition.\n\nWe could write a volume on this theme--the power of education in\nmaintaining religion; but we must be satisfied with the foregoing at\npresent, and turn our attention to the power of _money_. It is a wise\nadage that money is the sinews of war. Fighting is very largely, often\nwholly, a question of resources. Troops may be ever so brave, generals\never so skilful, but they will be beaten unless they have good rifles\nand artillery, plenty of ammunition, and an ample commissariat. Now the\nsame thing obtains in _all_ warfare. It would be foolish, no less than\nbase, to deny the inspiring efficacy of ideas, the electric force of\nenthusiasm; but, however highly men may be energised, they cannot act\nwithout instruments; and money buys them, whether the instruments\nbe rifles and artillery, or schools, or churches, or any kind of\norganisation.\n\nGiven churches with great wealth, as well as control over public\neducation, and it is easy to see that they will be able to perpetuate\nthemselves. Endowments are specially valuable. They are rooted, so to\nspeak, in the past, and hold firm. They bear golden fruit to be plucked\nby the skilful and adventurous. Besides, the very age of an endowed\ninstitution gives it a venerable ora; and its freedom from the full\nnecessity of \"cadging\" lends it a certain \"respectability\"--like that of\na man who lives on his means, instead of earning his living.\n\nIt is not an extravagant calculation that, in England alone, twenty\nmillions a year are spent on religion. The figures fall glibly from the\ntongue, but just try to realise them! Think first of a thousand, then of\na thousand thousand, then of twenty times that. Take a single million,\nand think what its expenditure might do in the shaping of public\nopinion. A practical friend of ours, a good Radical and Freethinker,\nsaid that he would undertake to create a majority for Home Rule in\nEngland with a million of money; and if he spent it judiciously, we\nthink he might succeed. Well then, just imagine, not one million, but\ntwenty millions, spent _every year_ in maintaining and propagating a\ncertain religion. Is it not enough, and more than enough, to perpetuate\na system which is firmly founded, to begin with, on the education of\nlittle children?\n\nHere lies the strength of Christianity. It is not true, it is not\nuseful. Its teachings and pretensions are both seen through by tens\nof thousands, but the wealth supports it. \"Without money and without\nprice,\" is the fraudulent language of the pious prospectus. It would\nnever last on those terms. The money keeps it up. Withdraw the money,\nand the Black Army would disband, leaving the people free to work out\ntheir secular salvation, without the fear and trembling of a foolish\nfaith.\n\n\n\n\nCLOTTED BOSH.\n\n     \"A heterogeneous mass of clotted bosh.\"\n     --Thomas Carlyle.\n\nThe death of Tennyson has called forth a vast deal of nonsense. Much\nof it is even insincere. The pulpits have spouted cataracts of\nsentimentality. Some of them have emitted quantities of sheer drivel. A\nstranger would think we had lost our only poet, and well-nigh our only\nteacher; whereas, if the truth must be told, we have lost one who was\noccasionally a great poet, but for the most part a miraculous artist\nin words. No man in his senses--certainly no man with a spark of\njudgment--could call Tennyson a profound thinker. Mainly he gave\nexquisite expression to ideas that floated around him. Nor did he\npossess a high degree of the creative faculty, such as Shakespeare\npossessed in inexhaustible abundance. Surely it is possible to admire\nour dead poet's genius without telling lies over his grave.\n\nAmong the pulpit utterances on Tennyson we note the Rev. Hugh Price\nHughes's as perhaps the very perfection of slobbery incapacity. He\nappears to be delivering a course of addresses on the poet. The first of\nthese escaped our attention; the second is before us in the supplement\nto last week's _Methodist Times_. We have read it with great attention\nand without the slightest profit. Not a sentence or a phrase in it rises\nabove commonplace. That a crowd of people should listen to such stuff\non a Sunday afternoon, when they might be taking a walk or enjoying a\nsnooze, is a striking evidence of the degeneration of the human mind, at\nleast in the circles of Methodism.\n\nMr. Hughes praises Tennyson for \"conscientiousness in the use and\nchoice of words.\" He should have said \"the choice and use of words,\" for\n_choice_ must precede _use_ to be of any service. Mr. Hughes says it is\nof great importance that we should all be as conscientious as Tennyson.\nHe might as well say it is of great importance that we should all be as\nstrong as Sandow.\n\nLet us take a few examples of _Mr. Hughes's_ \"conscientiousness.\"\nHe talks of \"shining features\" which \"lie upon the very surface\" of\nTennyson's poems. Now features seldom shine, they do not lie, and\nthey must be (not _upon_, but) _at_ the surface. Six lines further the\nshining features change into \"shining qualities,\" as though _features_\nand _qualities_ were synonyms. Mr. Hughes speaks, in the style of\na penny-a-liner, of Tennyson's \"amazing and unparalleled popular\ninfluence.\" Will he tell us if anything could amaze us _without_ being\nunparalleled? He remarks that Tennyson was \"not merely and mainly a poet\nof the educated classes.\" He should have said \"merely _or_ mainly.\" He\nenjoins upon us to \"define our terms\" and \"know the exact meanings\nof the terms we use\"--which is absolute tautology. He says of\nflirtation--on which he seems an authority--that \"I greatly fear, and am\nmorally certain\" it is as much perpetrated by men as by women. But if\nhe fears he cannot be certain, and if he is certain he cannot fear. He\ncalls duelling a form of \"insanity and barbarism.\" But while it may be\none or the other, it cannot be both at once. The disjunctive, therefore,\nnot the copulative, is the proper conjunction. Mr. Hughes misspells the\nname of Spenser, translates _mariage de convenance_ as a marriage\nof convenience, and inserts one of his own inventions in a line of\n_Locksley Hall_, which runs thus in the Hughes edition of Tennyson--\n\nPuppet to a father's threat and servile to a mother's shrewish tongue.\n\n\"Mother's\" spoils the line. It is not Tennyson's. Mr. Hughes may claim\nit--\"an ill-favored thing, sir, but mine own.\" It does equal credit to\nhis \"conscientiousness\" and his ears.\n\nMr. Hughes's style as a critic does not rise to the level of an active\ncontempt. Let us look at his matter and see if it shows any superiority.\n\n\"Yet although,\" Mr. Hughes says, with characteristic elegance--\"yet\nalthough he wrote so much, Tennyson never wrote a single line that would\nbring a painful or anxious blush to the cheek of the most innocent or\nsensitive maiden.\" What a curious antithesis! Why should a man write\nimpurely for writing much? And is _this_ the supreme virtue of a great\npoet? It might be predicated of Martin Tupper. Milton, on the other\nhand, must have made many a maiden rosy by his description of Eve's\nnaked loveliness--to say nothing of the scene after the Fall; while\nShakespeare must have turned many a maiden cheek scarlet, though we\ndo not believe he ever did the maiden any harm. Tennyson was not as\nfree-spoken as some poets--greater poets than himself. But what does Mr.\nHughes mean by his \"Christ-like purity\"? Is there a reference here to\nthe twelfth verse of the nineteenth chapter of Matthew?\n\nPurity, if properly understood, is undoubtedly a virtue. Mr. Hughes\nforgets, however, that his eulogy on Tennyson in this respect is a slur\nupon the Bible. There are things in the Old Testament--not to mention\nthe New Testament--calculated to make \"the most innocent or sensitive\nmaiden\" vomit; things that might abash a prostitute and make a satyr\nsqueamish. We suggest, therefore, that Mr. Hughes should cease canting\nabout \"purity\" while he helps to thrust the Bible into the hands of\nlittle children.\n\nThe reward of Tennyson's purity, according to Mr. Hughes, was that\n\"he was able to understand women.\" \"The English race,\" exclaims the\neulogist, \"has never contemplated a nobler or more inspiring womanhood\nthan that which glows on every page of Tennyson.\" This is the hectic\nexaggeration in which Mr. Hughes habitually indulges. Tennyson never\ndrew a live woman. Maud is a lay figure, and the heroine of \"The\nPrincess\" is purely fantastic. George Meredith beats the late Laureate\nhollow in this respect. He is second only to Shakespeare, who here, as\nelsewhere, maintains his supremacy.\n\nMr. Hughes's remarks on _Locksley Hall_ are, to use his own expression,\namazing. \"How terribly,\" he says, \"does he [Tennyson] paint the swift\ndegeneration of the faithless Amy.\" Mr. Hughes forgets--or _does_ he\nforget?--that in the sequel to this poem, entitled _Sixty Years After_,\nTennyson unsays all the high-pitched dispraise of Amy and her squire.\n_Locksley Hall_ is a piece of splendid versification, but the hero is a\nprig, which is a shade worse than a Philistine. Young fellows mouth the\npoem rapturously; their elders smile at the disguises of egotism.\n\nLoveless marriage was reprobated by Tennyson, and Mr. Hughes goes into\necstacies over the tremendous fact. Like the Psalmist, he is in haste;\nhe cannot point to a poet who ever hinted the dethronement of love.\n\nA choice Hughesean sentence occurs in this connexion. \"I very much\nregret,\" the preacher says, \"that Maud's lover was such a conventional\nidiot that he should have been guilty of the supreme folly of\nchallenging her brother to a duel.\" Shade of Lindley Murrey, what a\nsentence! A boy who wrote thus would deserve whipping. And what right,\nwe ask, has a Christian minister to rail at duelling? It was unknown to\nGreek or Roman society. Indeed, it is merely a form of the Ordeal, which\nwas upheld by Christianity. The duel was originally a direct and solemn\nappeal to Providence. Only a sceptic has the right to call it a folly.\n\nEnough of Mr. Hughes as a stylist, a critic, and teacher. What he really\nshines in is invention.\n\nHis story of the converted Atheist shoemaker displays a faculty which\nhas no scope in a sermon on Tennyson.\n\n\n\n\nLORD BACON ON ATHEISM.\n\nThe pedants will be down upon us for speaking of Lord Bacon. It is true\nthere never was such a personage. Francis Bacon was Baron of Verulam,\nViscount St. Alban, and Lord High Chancellor of England. But this is a\ncase in which it is impossible to resist the popular usage. After all,\nwe write to be understood. The pedants, the heralds, and all the rest\nof the tribe of technical fanatics, rejoice to mouth \"Lord Verulam.\"\nBut the ordinary man of letters, like the common run of readers, will\ncontinue to speak of Lord Bacon; for Bacon was his name, and the \"Lord\"\nwas but a pretty feather in his hat. And when his lordship took that\nsplendid pen of his, to jot down some of his profoundest thoughts for\nposterity, did he not say in his grand style, \"I, Francis Bacon, thought\non this wise\"? You cannot get the \"Bacon\" out of it, and as the \"Lord\"\nwill slip in, we must let it stand as Lord Bacon.\n\nLord Bacon was was a very great man. Who does not remember Pope's\nlines?--\n\n     If parts allure thee, think how Bacon shined,\n     The wisest, brightest, meanest of mankind.\n\nBut his hardship was fond of wielding the satiric lash, and that spirit\nleads to exaggeration. Bacon was not the meanest of mankind, Pope\nhimself did things that Bacon would never have stooped to. Nor was Bacon\nthe wisest and brightest of mankind. A wiser and brighter spirit was\ncontemporary with him in the person of \"a poor player.\" The dullards\nwho fancy that Lord Bacon wrote the plays of Shakespeare have no\ndiscrimination. His lordship's mind might have been cut out of the\npoet's without leaving an incurable wound. Some will dissent from this,\nbut be it as it may, the _styles_ of the two men are vastly different,\nlike their ways of thinking. Bacon's essay on Love is cynical. The man\nof the world, the well-bred statesman, looked on Love as \"the child of\nfolly,\" a necessary nuisance, a tragi-comical perturbation. Shakespeare\nsaw in Love the mainspring of life. Love speaks \"in a perpetual\nhyperbole,\" said Bacon. Shakespeare also said that the lover \"sees\nHelen's beauty in a brow of Egypt,\" The poet knew all the philosopher\nknew, and more. What Bacon laughed or sneered at, Shakespeare recognised\nas the magic of the great enchanter, who touches our imaginations and\nkindles in us the power of the ideal. Exaggeration there must be in\npassion and imagination; it is the defect of their quality; but what are\nwe without them? Dead driftwood on the tide; dismantled hulls rotting in\nharbor; anything that awaits destruction, to give its imprisoned forces\na chance of asserting themselves in new forms of being.\n\nBacon was not a Shakespeare; still, he was a very great man. His\nwritings are a text-book of worldly wisdom. His philosophical force\nis almost proverbial. Nor was he wanting in a certain \"dry\" poetry.\nNo philosophical writer, not even Plato, equals him in the command of\nilluminative metaphors; and the fine dignity of his style is beyond all\npraise. The words drop from his pen with exquisite ease and felicity.\nHe is never in a hurry, never ruffled. He writes like a Lord Chancellor,\nthough with something in him above the office; and if he is now and then\nfamiliar, it is only a slight condescension, like the joke of a judge,\nwhich does not bring him down to the level of the litigants.\n\nThe opinions of such a man are worth studying; and as Lord Bacon is\noften quoted in condemnation of Atheism, we propose to see what he\nactually says about it, what his judgment on this particular theme\nis really worth, and what allowance, if any, should be made for the\nconditions in which he expressed himself. This last point, indeed,\nis one of considerable importance. Lord Bacon lived at a time when\ndownright heresy, such as Raleigh and other great men of that age were\naccused of, could only be ventilated in private conversation. In writing\nit could only be hinted or suggested; and, in this respect, a writer's\n_silence_ is to be taken into account; that is, we must judge by what he\ndoes _not_ say, as well as by what he _does_ say.\n\nSome writers, like Letourneau, the French ethnologist, have gone to\nthe length of arguing that Lord Bacon was a Materialist, and that his\nTheistic utterances were all perfunctory: as it were, the pinch of\nincense which the philosopher was obliged to burn on the altars of\nthe gods. This much at least is certain--Lord Bacon rarely speaks of\nreligion except as a philosopher or a statesman. He is apt to sneer at\nthe \"high speculations\" of \"theologues.\" There is no piety, no unction,\nin his allusions to theology. He looks upon religion as a social bond,\nan agency of good government. It is impossible to say that he took\na Christian view of things when he wrote, \"I have often thought upon\nDeath, and I find it the least of all evils\"; or when he wrote, \"Men\nfear death as children fear to go into the dark; and as that natural\nfear in children is increased with tales, so is the other.\"\n\nLord Bacon has an essay on Atheism, which is significantly followed by\nanother on Superstition. The latter is seldom referred to by religious\napologists, but we shall deal with it first.\n\n\"In all superstition,\" he says, \"wise men follow fools.\" This is a bold,\nsignificant utterance. Fools are always in the majority, wise men are\nfew, and they are obliged to bow to the power of the multitude. Kings\nrespect, and priests organise, the popular folly; and the wise men have\nto sit aloft and nod to each other across the centuries. There is a\nfreemasonry amongst them, and they have their shibboleths and dark\nsayings, to protect them against priests and mobs.\n\nPerhaps the story of Balaam is a subtle anticipation of Lord Bacon's\ndictum. It was the ass that first saw the angel. Baalam only saw it\nafterwards, when his wits were disordered by the wonder of a talking\ndonkey. Thus the prophet followed the ass, as wise men follow fools.\n\nSuperstition is worse than Atheism, in Lord Bacon's judgment; the one\nis unbelief, he says, but the other is contumely; and \"it were better\nto have no opinion of God at all, than such an opinion as is unworthy\nof him.\" He approves the saying of Plutarch, that he \"had rather a great\ndeal men should say there was no such man as Plutarch, than that they\nshould say there was one Plutarch that would eat his children as soon as\nthey were born\"--which, on the part of Lord Bacon, looks like a thrust\nat the doctrine of original sin and infant damnation.\n\nWith his keen eye for \"the good of man's estate,\" Lord Bacon remarks\nof superstition, that \"as the contumely is greater towards God, so the\ndanger is greater towards men.\"\n\n\"Atheism leaves a man to sense, to philosophy, to natural piety, to\nlaws, to reputation; all which may be guides to an outward moral virtue,\nthough religion were not; but superstition dismounts all these, and\nerecteth an absolute monarchy in the minds of men; therefore Atheism did\nnever perturb states; for it makes men wary of themselves, as looking\nno farther, and we see the times inclined to Atheism (as the time\nof Augustus Caesar) were civil times; but superstition hath been the\nconfusion of many states, and bringeth in a new _primum mobile_ that\nravisheth all the spheres of government.\"\n\nBy \"civil times\" Lord Bacon means settled, quiet, orderly, progressive\ntimes--times of civilisation. And it is rather singular that he should\npick out the age immediately preceding the advent of Christianity.\nWhatever fault is in Atheism, it is no danger to human society. This\nis Lord Bacon's judgment, and we commend it to the attention of the\nfanatics of faith, who point to Atheism as a horrid monster, fraught\nwith cruelty, bloodshed, and social disruption.\n\nComing now to Lord Bacon's essay on Atheism itself, we find him opening\nit with a very pointed utterance of Theism. \"I had rather,\" he says,\n\"believe all the fables in the legend, and the Talmud, and the Alcoran,\nthan that this universal frame is without a mind.\" The expression is\nadmirable, but the philosophy is doubtful. When a man says he would\n_rather_ believe one thing than another, he is merely exhibiting\na personal preference. Real belief is not a matter of taste; it is\ndetermined by evidence--if not absolutely, at least as far as our power\nof judgment carries us.\n\n\"A little philosophy,\" his lordship says, \"inclineth man's mind\nto Atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to\nreligion.\" The reason he assigns is, that when we no longer rest in\nsecond causes, but behold \"the chain of them confederate, and linked\ntogether,\" we must needs \"fly to providence and Deity.\" The necessity,\nhowever, is far from obvious. All the laws, as we call them, of all the\nsciences together, do not contain any new principle in their addition.\nUniversal order is as consistent with Materialism as with Theism. It\nis easy to say that \"God never wrought miracles to convince Atheism,\nbecause his ordinary works convince it\"; but, as a matter of fact, it\nis the God of Miracles in whom the multitude have always believed. A\nspecial providence, rather than a study of the universe, has been the\nsecret of their devotion to \"the unseen.\"\n\nLord Bacon drops below the proper level of his genius in affirming that\n\"none deny there is a God, but those for whom it maketh that there\nwere no God.\" This is but a milder expression of the incivility of the\nPsalmist. It is finely rebuked by the atheist Monk in the play of \"Sir\nWilliam Crichton,\" the work of a man of great though little recognised\ngenius--William Smith.\n\nFor ye who deem that one who lacks of faith Is therefore\nconscience-free, ye little know How doubt and sad denial may enthral him\nTo the most timid sanctity of life.\n\nLord Bacon, indeed, rather doubts the existence of the positive Atheist.\n\n\"It appeareth in nothing more, that Atheism is rather in the lip than\nin the heart of man, than by this, that Atheists will ever be talking\nof that their opinion, as if they fainted in it within themselves, and\nwould be glad to be strengthened by the opinion of others: nay more,\nyou shall have Atheists strive to get disciples, as it fareth with\nother sects; and, which is most of all, you shall have of them that will\nsuffer for Atheism, and not recant; whereas, if they truly think that\nthere is no such thing as God, Why should they trouble themselves?\"\n\nAlthough Lord Bacon was not the \"meanest of mankind,\" there was\ncertainly a lack of the heroic in his disposition; and this passage\nemanated from the most prosaic part of his mind and character. \"Great\nthoughts,\" said Vauvenargues, \"spring from the heart.\" Now the heart of\nLord Bacon was not as high as his intellect; no one could for a moment\nimagine his facing martyrdom. He had none of the splendid audacity,\nthe undaunted courage, the unshakable fortitude, of his loftier\ncontemporary, Giordano Bruno. So much truth is there in Pope's epigram,\nthat his lordship was capable at times of grovelling; witness his\nfulsome, though magnificent, dedication of the _Advancement of Learning_\nto King James--the British Solomon, as his flatterers called him, to the\namusement of the great Henry of France, who sneered, \"Yes, Solomon\nthe son of David,\" in allusion to his mother's familiarity with David\nRizzio. And in this very passage of the essay on Atheism we also see\nthe grovelling side of Lord Bacon, with a corresponding perversion of\nintelligence. Being incapable of understanding martyrdom, except under\nthe expectation of a reward in heaven, his lordship cannot appreciate\nthe act of an Atheist in suffering for his convictions. His concluding\nwords are positively _mean_. Surely the Atheist might trouble himself\nabout truth, justice, and dignity; all of which are involved in the\nmaintenance and propagation of his principles. But, if the closing\nobservation is mean, the opening observation is fatuous. This is a\nstrong word to use of any sentence of Lord Bacon's, but in this instance\nit is justifiable. If an Atheist mistrusts his own opinion, because he\ntalks about it, what is to be said of the Christians, who pay thousands\nof ministers to talk about their opinions, and even subscribe for\nMissionary Societies to talk about them to the \"heathen\"? Are we to\nconclude that an Atheist's talking shows mistrust, and a Christian's\ntalking shows confidence? What real weakness is there in the Atheist's\nseeking for sympathy and concurrence? It is hard for any man to stand\nalone; certainly it was not in Lord Bacon's line to do so; and why\nshould not the Atheist be \"glad to be strengthened by the opinion of\nothers\"! Novalis said that his opinion gained infinitely when it was\nshared by another. The participation does not prove the truth of the\nopinion, but redeems it from the suspicion of being a mere maggot of an\nindividual brain.\n\nLord Bacon then turns to the barbaric races, who worship particular\ngods, though they have not the general name; a fact which he did not\nunderstand. More than two hundred years later it was explained by David\nHume. It is simply a proof that monotheism grows out of polytheism; or,\nif you like, that Theism is a development of Idolatry. This is a truth\nthat takes all the sting out of Lord Bacon's observation that \"against\nAtheists the very savages take part with the very subtilest\nphilosophers.\" We may just remark that the philosophers must be very\nhard pressed when they call up their savage allies.\n\nContemplative Atheists are rare, says Lord Bacon--\"a Diagoras, a Bion, a\nLucian perhaps, and some others.\" They seem more than they are, for all\nsorts of heretics are branded as Atheists; which leads his lordship to\nthe declaration that \"the great Atheists indeed are hypocrites, which\nare ever handling holy things, but without feeling; so as they must\nneeds be cauterised in the end.\" This is a pungent observation, and it\nsprings from the better side of his lordship's nature. We also have no\nrespect for hypocrites, and for that very reason we object to them as a\npresent to Atheism. Religion must consume in its own smoke, and dispose\nof its own refuse.\n\nThe causes of Atheism next occupy Lord Bacon's attention. He finds\nthey are four; divisions in religion, the scandal of priests, profane\nscoffing in holy matters, and \"learned times, especially with peace and\nprosperity.\" \"Troubles and adversities,\" his lordship says, \"do more\nbow men's minds to religion.\" Which is true enough, though it only\nillustrates the line of the Roman poet that religion always has its root\nin fear.\n\nIt will be observed that, up to the present, Lord Bacon has not\nconsidered one of the reasons _for_ Atheism. What he calls \"causes\" are\nonly _occasions_. He does not discuss, or even refer to, the objections\nto Theism that are derived from the tentative operations of nature, so\ndifferent from what might be expected from a settled plan; from ugly,\nvenomous and monstrous things; from the great imperfection of nature's\nvery highest productions; from the ignorance, misery, and degradation of\nsuch a vast part of mankind; from the utter absence of anything like a\nmoral government of the universe. Only towards the end of his essay does\nLord Bacon begin business with the Atheists. \"They that deny a God,\"\nhe says, \"destroy a man's nobility; for certainly man is of kin to the\nbeasts by his body; and, if he be not of kin to God by his spirit, he\nis a base and ignoble creature.\" This is pointed and vigorous, but after\nall it is a matter of sentiment. Some prefer the fallen angel, others\nthe risen ape.\n\nLord Bacon, like Earl Beaconsfield, is on the side of the angels. We\nare on the other side. A being who has done something, and will do more,\nhowever humble his origin, is preferable to one who can only boast of\nhis fine descent.\n\nFinally, his lordship takes the illustration of the dog, to whom man is\n\"instead of a God.\" What generosity and courage he will put on, in the\n\"confidence of a better nature than his own.\" So man gathereth force\nand faith from divine protection and favor. Atheism therefore \"depriveth\nhuman nature of the means to exalt itself above human frailty.\" But\nthis is to forget that there may be more than one means to the same end.\nHuman nature may be exalted above its frailty without becoming the dog\nof a superior intelligence. Science, self-examination, culture, public\nopinion, and the growth of humanity, are more than substitutes for\ndevotion to a deity. They are capable of exalting man continuously and\nindefinitely. They do not appeal to the spaniel element in his nature;\nthey make him free, erect, noble, and self-dependent.\n\nOn the whole we are bound to say that Lord Bacon's essay on Atheism is\nunworthy of his genius. If it were the only piece of his writing extant,\nwe should say it was the work of one who had great powers of expression\nbut no remarkable powers of thought. He writes very finely as a strong\nadvocate, putting a case in a way that commands attention, and perhaps\nadmiration for its force and skill. But something more than this is to\nbe expected when a really great man addresses himself to a question of\nsuch depth and importance. What then are we to conclude? Why this, that\nLord Bacon dared not give the rein to his mind in an essay on\nAtheism. He was bound to be circumspect in a composition level to the\nintelligence of every educated reader. We prefer to take him where he\nenjoys greater freedom. Under the veil of a story, for instance, he\naims a dart at the superstition of a special providence, which is an\nineradicable part of the Christian faith.\n\nBion, the Atheist, being shown the votive tablets in the temple of\nNeptune, presented by those who prayed to the god in a storm and were\nsaved, asked where were the tablets of those who were drowned. Bacon\ntells the story with evident gusto, and it is in such things that we\nseem to get at his real thoughts. In a set essay on Atheism, a man\nof his worldly wisdom, and un-heroic temper, was sure to kneel at the\nregular altars. The single query \"Why should they trouble themselves?\"\nexplains it all.\n\n\n\n\nCHRISTIANITY AND SLAVERY. *\n\n     * Christianity and Slavery. No. 18 of Oxford House Papers.\n     By H. Henley Henson, B.A., Head of the Oxford House in\n     Bethnal Green. London: Rivingtons.\n\nSome time ago I delivered a lecture in the London Hall of Science on\n\"Christianity and Slavery.\" Among my critics there was one gentleman,\nand the circumstance was so noteworthy that my friend the chairman\nexpressed a wish, which I cordially echoed, that we might have the\npleasure of hearing him again. A few days ago a pamphlet reached me on\nthe subject of that lecture, written by my friendly opponent, who turns\nout to be the head of the Oxford House in Bethnal Green. Mr. Henson\nsends me the pamphlet himself \"with his compliments,\" and I have read\nit carefully. Indeed, I have marked it in dozens of places where his\nstatements strike me as inaccurate and his arguments as fallacious; and,\non the whole, I think it best to give him a set answer in this journal.\nMr. Henson's paper is not, in my opinion, a very forcible one on the\nintellectual side. But perhaps that is, in a certain sense, one of its\nmerits; for the Christian case in this dispute is so bad that sentiment\ndoes it more service than logic. I must, however, allow that Mr. Henson\nis a courteous disputant, and I hope I shall reciprocate his good\nfeeling. When he opposed me at the Hall of Science, he admits that I\ntreated him \"with a courtesy which relieves controversy of its worst\naspects.\" I trust he will be equally satisfied with my rejoinder.\nWhenever I may have occasion to express myself strongly, I shall simply\nbe in earnest about the theme, without the least intention of being\ndiscourteous. I mean no offence, and I hope I shall give none.\n\nMr. Henson says he is dealing in a brief compass with a big subject, but\n\"the outlines are clear, and may be perceived very readily by any honest\nman of moderate intelligence.\" Well, whether it is that I am not an\nhonest man, or that I possess immoderate intelligence, I certainly\ndo not see the outlines of the subject as Mr. Henson sees them. The\nrelation of Christianity to slavery is an historical question, and Mr.\nHenson treats it as though it were one of dialectics. However, I suppose\nI had better follow him, and show that he is wrong even on his own\nground.\n\nMr. Henson undertakes to prove three things. (1) That slavery is flatly\nopposed to the teaching of the New Testament. (2) That the abolition\nof slavery in Europe was mainly owing to Christianity. (3) That at this\npresent time Christianity is steadily working against slavery all over\nthe world.\n\nBefore I discuss the first proposition I must ask why the _Old_\nTestament is left out of account. Mr. Henson relegates it to a footnote,\nand there he declares \"once for all, that the Mosaic Law has nothing to\ndo with the question.\" But Mr. Henson's \"once for all\" has not the force\nof a Papal decree. It is simply a bit of rhetorical emphasis, like a\nflourish to a signature. Does he mean to say that the author of the\nMosaic Law was not the same God who speaks to us in the New Testament?\nIf it was the same God, \"the same, yesterday, to-day, and for ever,\" the\nMosaic Law has very much to do with the question; unless--and this is\na vital point--Jesus distinctly abrogates it in any respect. He _did_\ndistinctly abrogate the _lex talionis_, an eye for an eye and a tooth\nfor a tooth; but he left the laws of slavery exactly as he found them,\nand in this he was followed by Peter and Paul, and by all the Fathers of\nthe Church.\n\nMr. Henson tells us that \"the Jews were a barbarous race, and slavery\nwas necessary to that stage of development,\" and that \"the Law of Moses\nmoderated the worst features of slavery.\" The second statement cannot\nbe discussed, for we do not know what was the condition of slavery among\nthe Jews before the so-called Mosaic Law (centuries after Moses) came\ninto vogue. The first statement, however, is perfectly true; the Jews\n_were_ barbarous, and slavery among them was inevitable. But that is\nspeaking _humanly_. What is the use of God's interference if he does not\nmake people wiser and better? Why did he lay down slavery laws without\nhinting that they were provisional? Why did he so express himself as to\nenable Christian divines and whole Churches to justify slavery from the\nBible long after it had died out of the internal polity of civilised\nstates? Surely God might have given less time to Aaron's vestments\nand the paraphernalia of his own Tabernacle, and devoted some of his\ninfinite leisure to teaching the Jews that property in human flesh and\nblood is immoral. Instead of that he actually told them, not only how\nto buy foreigners (Leviticus xxv. 45, 46), but how to enslave their own\nbrethren (Exodus xxi. 2-11).\n\nWhen Jesus Christ came from heaven to give mankind a new revelation he\nhad a fine opportunity to correct the brutalities of the Mosaic Law. Yet\nMr. Henson allows that he \"did not actually forbid Slavery in express\nterms,\" and that he \"never said in so many words, Slavery is wrong.\"\nBut why not? It will not do to say the time was not ripe, for Mr. Henson\nadmits that in Rome \"the fashionable philosophies, especially that of\nthe Stoics, branded Slavery as an outrage against the natural Equality\nof Men.\" Surely Jesus Christ might have kept abreast of the Stoics.\nSurely, too, as he did not mean to say anything more for at least two\nthousand years, he might have gone _in advance_ of the best teaching of\nthe age, so as to provide for the progress of future generations.\n\nBut, says Mr. Henson, Jesus Christ \"laid down broad principles which\ntook from Slavery its bad features, and tended, by an unerring law to\nits abolition.\" Well, the tendency was a remarkably slow one. Men still\nliving can remember when Slavery was abolished in the British dominions.\nI can remember when it was abolished in the United States. Eighteen\ncenturies of Christian _tendency_ were necessary to kill Slavery! Surely\nthe natural growth of civilisation might have done as much in that time,\nthough Jesus Christ had never lived and taught. How civilisation _did_\nmitigate the horrors of Slavery, and was gradually but surely working\ntowards its abolition, may be seen in Gibbon's second chapter. This\nwas under the great Pagan emperors, some of whom knew Christianity and\ndespised it.\n\n\"Slavery is cruel,\" says Mr. Henson, while \"Christianity teaches men\nto be kind and to love one another.\" But _teaching_ men to love one\nanother, even if Christianity taught nothing else--which is far from the\ntruth--is a very questionable expenditure of time and energy; for how is\nlove to be _taught_? Besides, a master and a slave might be attached to\neach other--as was often the case--without either seeing that Slavery\nwas a violation of the law of love. What was needed was the sentiment of\n_Justice_. That has broken the chains of the slave. The Stoics were\non the right track after all, while Christianity lost itself in idle\nsentimentalism.\n\n\"Slavery denies the Equality of Men,\" says Mr. Henson, while\n\"Christianity asserts it strongly.\" I regret I cannot agree with him.\nCertain amiable texts which he cites might easily be confronted with\nothers of a very different character. What did Christ mean by promising\nthat when he came into his kingdom his disciples should sit on twelve\nthrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel? How is this consistent\nwith his saying, \"call no man master\"? What did Paul mean by ordering\nunlimited obedience to \"the powers that be\"? What did he and Peter mean\nby telling slaves to obey their owners? Is all this consistent with the\ndoctrine of human equality? Mr. Henson simply reads into certain New\nTestament utterances what was never in the speakers' minds. His abstract\nargument is indeed perilous in regard to such composite writings as the\nGospels and the Epistles. Let it be assumed, for argument's sake, that\nChristianity does somewhere assert the Equality of Men. Then it condemns\nRoyalty as well as Slavery; yet Peter says, \"Fear God and honor the\nKing.\" I leave Mr. Henson to extricate himself from this dilemma.\n\nI repeat that all this dialectic is a kind of subterfuge; at least it\nis an evasion. The great fact remains that Jesus Christ never breathed\na whisper against slavery when he had the opportunity. Yet he could\ndenounce what he disapproved in the most vigorous fashion. His\nobjurgation of the Scribes and Pharisees is almost without a parallel.\nSurely he might have reserved a little of his boisterous abuse for an\ninstitution which was infinitely more harmful than the whole crowd of\nhis rivals. Those who opposed _him_ were overwhelmed with vituperation,\nbut not once did he censure those who held millions in cruel bondage,\nturning men into mere beasts of burden, and women, if they happened to\nbe beautiful, into the most wretched victims of lust.\n\nLet us now turn to Paul, the great apostle whose teaching has had more\ninfluence on the faith and practice of Christendom than that of Jesus\nhimself. Mr. Henson says that \"the Apostle does not say one word for or\nagainst slavery as such.\" Again I regret to differ. Paul never said a\nword _against_ slavery, but he said many words that sanctioned it by\nimplication. He tells slaves (_servants_ in the Authorised Version) to\ncount their owners worthy of all honor (1 Tim. vi. 1); to be obedient\nunto them, with fear and trembling, as unto Christ (Ephesians vi. 5);\nand to please them in all things (Titus ii. 9). I need not discuss\nwhether servants means _slaves_ and masters _owners_, for Mr. Henson\nadmits that such is their meaning. Here then Paul is, if Jesus was not,\nbrought face to face with slavery, and he does not even suggest that the\ninstitution is wrong. He tells slaves to obey their owners as they obey\nChrist; and, on the other hand, he bids owners to \"forbear threatening\"\ntheir slaves. But so much might have been said by Cicero and Pliny; the\nformer of whom, as Lecky says, wrote many letters to his slave Tiro \"in\nterms of sincere and delicate friendship\"; while the latter \"poured out\nhis deep sorrow for the death of some of his slaves, and endeavored to\nconsole himself with the thought that as he had emancipated them before\ntheir death, they had at least died free men.\"\n\nPaul does indeed say that both bond and free are \"all one in Christ.\"\nBut Louis the Fourteenth would have admitted _that_ kinship between\nhimself and the meanest serf in France, \"One in Christ\" is a spiritual\nidea, and has relation to a future life, in which earthly distinctions\nwould naturally cease.\n\nMr. Henson is obliged to face the story of Onesimus, the runaway slave,\nwhom Paul deliberately sent back to his master, Philemon. \"The Apostle's\nposition,\" he says, \"is practically this\"; whereupon he puts into Paul's\nmouth words of his own invention. I do not deny his right to use\nthis literary artifice, but I decline to let it impose on my own\nunderstanding. There is a certain pathetic tenderness in Paul's letter\nto Philemon if we suppose that he took the institution of Slavery for\ngranted, but it vanishes if we suppose that he felt the institution to\nbe wrong. Professor Newman justly remarks that \"Onesimus, in the very\nact of taking to flight, showed that he had been submitting to servitude\nagainst his will, and that the house of his owner had previously been\na prison to him.\" Nor do I see any escape from the same writer's\nconclusion that, although Paul besought Philemon to treat Onesimus as\na brother, \"this very recommendation, full of affection as it is,\nvirtually recognises the moral rights of Philemon to the services of his\nslave.\" Mr. Benson apparently feels this himself. \"Christian tradition,\"\nhe says, \"declares that Philemon at once set Onesimus free.\" But\n\"tradition\" can hardly be cited as a fact. Mr. Henson says \"it is more\nthan probable,\" or, in other words, _certain_; yet he cannot expect me\nto follow him in his illogical leap. Nor, indeed, is the \"traditional\"\nliberation of Onesimus of much importance to the argument. Not\nPhilemon's but Paul's views are in dispute; and if Philemon did liberate\nOnesimus--which is a pure assumption--Paul certainly did not advise him\nto do anything of the kind.\n\nPaul's epistle to Philemon does not, from its very-nature, seem intended\nfor publication. Why then, in the ease of private correspondence, did\nhe not hint that Slavery was only tolerated for the time and would\neventually cease? Instead of that he sent back Onesimus to a servitude\nfrom which he had fled. How unlike Theodore Parker writing his\ndiscourse, with a runaway slave in the back room, and a revolver on his\ndesk! How unlike Walt Whitman watching the slumber of another fugitive,\nwith one hand on his trusty rifle!\n\nMr. Henson lives after the abolition of Slavery, and as he clings to his\nBible as God's Word he reads into it the morality of a later age. Let\nhim consult the writings of Christian divines on the subject, and\nhe will see that they have almost invariably justified Slavery from\nscripture. Ignatius (who is said to have seen Jesus), St. Cyprian, Pope\nGregory the Great, St. Basil, Tertullian, St. Isidore, St. Augustine,\nSt. Bernard, St. Thomas Aquinas, and Bossuet, all taught that Slavery is\na divine institution. During all the centuries from Ignatius to Bossuet,\nwhat eminent Christian ever denounced Slavery as wicked? Even the\nChristian jurisprudists of the eighteenth century defended negro\nslavery, which it was reserved for the sceptical Montesquieu and the\narch-heretic Voltaire to condemn. Montesquieu's ironical chapter on the\nsubject is worthy of Molliere, and Voltaire's is an honor to humanity.\nHe called Slavery \"the degrada of the species\"; and, in answer to\nPuffendorff, who claimed that slavery had been established by the\nfree consent of the opposing parties, he exclaimed, \"I will believe\nPuffendorff, when he shows me the original contract.\"\n\nNegro slavery was defended in America by direct appeal to the Bible. Mr.\nHenson seeks to lessen the force of this damning fact by referring to\nthese defenders of slavery as \"certain clergymen and other Christians,\"\nand as \"ignorant and unworthy members of the Church.\" _Certain_\nclergymen! Why, the clergy defended slavery almost to a man, and in\nthe Northern States they were even more bigoted than in the South. Mrs.\nBeecher Stowe said that the Church was so familiarly quoted as being on\nthe side of Slavery, that \"Statesmen on both sides of the question have\nlaid that down as a settled fact.\" Theodore Parker said that if the\nwhole American Church had \"dropped through the continent and disappeared\naltogether, the anti-Slavery cause would have been further on.\" He\npointed out that no Church ever issued a single tract, among all its\nthousands, against property in human flesh and blood; and that 80,000\nslaves were owned by Presbyterians, 225,000 by Baptists, and 250,000\nby Methodists. Wilberforce himself declared that the American Episcopal\nChurch \"raises no voice against the predominant evil; she palliates\nit in theory, and in practice she shares in it. The mildest and most\nconscientious of the bishops of the South are slaveholders themselves.\"\nThe Harmony Presbytery of South Carolina deliberately resolved that\nSlavery was justified by Holy Writ. The Methodist Episcopal Church\ndecided in 1840 against allowing any \"colored persons\" to give testimony\nagainst \"white persons.\" The College Church of the Union Theological\nSeminary, Prince Edward County, was endowed with slaves, who were hired\nout to the highest bidder for the pastor's salary. Lastly, Professor\nMoses Stuart, of Andover, who is accounted the greatest American\ntheologian since Jonathan Edwards, declared that \"The precepts of the\nNew Testament respecting the demeanor of slaves and their masters\nbeyond all question recognise the existence of Slavery.\" So much for Mr.\nHenson's \"certain clergymen.\"\n\nMr. Henson also argues that the Northern States were \"the most\ndistinctly Christian,\" and that they were opposed to Slavery. History\nbelies this statement Harriet Martineau, when she visited America and\nstood on the anti-slavery platform, says she was in danger of her life\nin the North while scarcely molested in the South. When William Lloyd\nGarrison delivered his first anti-slavery lecture in Boston, the classic\nhome of American orthodoxy, every Catholic and Protestant church was\nclosed against him, and he was obliged to accept the use of Julian Hall\nfrom Abner Kneeland, an infidel who had been prosecuted for blasphemy.\nIt was not \"the true spirit of Christianity\" which abolished Slavery\nin the United States, but \"the true spirit of Humanity,\" which inspired\nsome Christians and more Freethinkers to vindicate the natural rights\nof men of all colors. Even in the end, Slavery was not terminated by the\nvote of the Churches; it was abolished by Lincoln as a strategic act in\nthe midst of a civil war, precisely as was predicted by Thomas Paine,\nwho not only hated Slavery while his Christian defamers lived by it,\nbut was more sagacious in his political forecast than all the orthodox\nstatesmen of his age.\n\n\"A movement headed by Clarkson and Wilberforce,\" says Mr. Henson,\n\"could be no other than Christian,\" But why? Were not the slave-owners\nalso Christians? Was not the strength of Freethinkers, from Jeremy\nBentham downwards, given to the abolition movement? Were not the\nFreethinkers all on one side, while the Christians were divided? And why\ndid the abolition movement in England wait until new ideas had leavened\nthe public mind? Had it been purely Christian, would it not have\ntriumphed long before? The fact is there was plenty of Christianity\nduring the preceding thousand years, but the sceptical and humanitarian\nwork of the eighteenth century was necessary before there could be\nany general revolt against injustice and oppression. No perversion of\nhistory can alter the fact that, in the words of Professor Newman, \"the\nfirst public act against Slavery came from republican France, in the\nmadness of atheistic enthusiasm.\" Mr. Henson sees this clearly himself,\nand therefore he pretends that all the best ideas of the French\nRevolution were borrowed from Christianity. Shades of Voltaire and\nDiderot, of Mirabeau and Danton, listen to this apologist of the faith\nyou despised! Voltaire's face is wreathed with ineffable irony, Diderot\ncontemplates the speaker as a new species for a psychological monograph,\nMirabeau flings back his leonine head with a swirl of the black mane and\na glare of the great eyes, and Danton roars a titanic laugh that shakes\nthe very roof of Hades.\n\nNow let us turn to the old indigenous Slavery of Europe. Mr. Henson\nappeals to \"the witness of history,\" and he shall have it. He\nundertakes to prove \"That among the various causes which tended to\nassuage the hardship and threaten the permanence of Slavery, the most\npowerful, the most active, and most successful was Christianity\"; also\n\"That when the barbarian conquests re-established slavery in a new form,\nthe Church exerted all her energies on the side of freedom.\"\n\nThat Christianity \"threatened\" the permanence of Slavery is, of course,\npurely a matter of opinion. Mr. Henson takes one view, I have given\nreasons for another, and the reader must judge between us. That it\nsoftened the rigors of Slavery is a very questionable statement. When\nMr. Henson says that \"Roman Slavery was, perhaps, the most cruel and\nrevolting kind of Slavery,\" he is guilty of historical confusion. Roman\nSlavery lasted for very many centuries. In the early ages it was brutal\nenough, but under the great emperors, and especially the Antonines,\nit was far more merciful than negro Slavery was in Christian America.\nSlaves were protected by law; the power of putting them to death was\ntaken from the masters and entrusted to the magistrates; and, as Gibbon\nsays, \"Upon a just complaint of intolerable treatment, the injured slave\neither obtained his deliverance or a less cruel master.\" Compare this\nwith the condition of serfs under the Christian feudal system, when, in\nMr. Henson's own language, \"the serf was tied to the soil, bought and\nsold with it, the chattel of his master, who could overwork, beat, and\neven kill him at will.\"\n\nThe phrase \"re-established Slavery in a new form,\" seems to imply that\nChristianity had abolished Slavery before the barbaric conquests. But it\nhad done nothing of the kind. Nay, as a matter of fact, Constantine and\nhis successors drew a sharper line than ever between slaves and freemen.\nConstantine (the first Christian emperor) actually decreed death against\nany freewoman who should marry a slave, while the slave himself was to\nbe burnt alive!\n\nMuch of what Mr. Henson says about the manumission of slaves by some of\nthe mediaeval clergy is unquestionably true. But who doubts that, during\na thousand years, a humane and even a noble heart often beat under a\npriest's cassock? These manumissions, however, were of Christian slaves.\nThe Pagan slaves--such as the Sclavonians, from whom the word _slave_ is\nderived--were considered to have no claims at all. Surely the liberation\nof fellow Christians might spring from proselyte zeal. \"Mohammedans\nalso,\" as Professor Newman says, \"have a conscience against enslaving\nMohammedans, and generally bestow freedom on a slave as soon as he\nadopts their religion.\" Manumission of slaves was common among humane\nowners under the Roman Empire; indeed Gibbon observes that the law had\nto guard against the swamping of free citizens by the sudden inrush of\n\"a mean and promiscuous multitude.\" Clerical manumission of slaves in\nmediaeval times was therefore no novelty. On the other hand, bishops\nheld slaves like kings and nobles. The Abbey of St. Germain de Pres,\nfor instance, owned 80,000 slaves, and the Abbey of St. Martin de\nTours 20,000. The monks, who according to Mr. Henson, did so much to\nextinguish slavery, owned multitudes of these servile creatures.\n\nThe acts of a few humane and noble spirits are no test of the effects of\na system. The decisions of Church Councils are a much better criterion.\nThey show the influence of _principles_, when personal equation is\neliminated. Turning to these Councils, then, what do we find? Why that\nfrom the Council of Laodicea to the Lateran Council (1215)--that is,\nfor eight hundred years--the Church sanctioned Slavery again and again.\nSlaves and their owners might be \"one in Christ,\" but the Church taught\nthem to keep their distance on earth.\n\nCivilisation, not Christianity, gradually extinguished Slavery in\nEurope. Foreign slavery, such as that in our West Indian possessions,\nis an artificial thing, and may be abolished by the stroke of a pen. But\ndomestic slavery has to die a natural death. The progress of education\nand refinement, and the growth of the sentiment of justice, help to\nextinguish it; but behind these there is an economical law which is no\nless potent. Slave labor is only consistent with a low industrial life;\nand thus, as civilisation expands, slavery fades into serfdom, and\nserfdom into wage-service, as naturally as the darkness of night melts\ninto the morning twilight, and the twilight into day.\n\nMr. Henson throws in some not ineloquent remarks about the abolition\nby Christianity of the gladiatorial shows at Rome. He himself has stood\nwithin the ruined Colosseum and re-echoed Byron's heroics. Mr. Henson\neven outdid Byron, for he looked up to the dome of St. Peter's, where\ngleamed the Cross of Christ, and rejoiced that \"He had triumphed at\nlast.\" \"If only Mr. Foote had been there!\" Mr. Henson exclaims. Well,\nGibbon was there before Mr. Henson and before Byron. What he thought\nin the Colosseum I know not, but I know that the great project of\n_The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire_ took shape in his mind one\neventful evening as he \"sat musing amidst the ruins of the Capitol,\nwhile the barefooted friars were singing vespers in the temple of\nJupiter.\" Yet I suppose Gibbon's fifteenth chapter is scarcely to Mr.\nHenson's taste. Had I \"been there\" with Mr. Henson, I too might have had\nmy reflections, and I might have thrown this Freethought _douche_ on his\nChristian ardor. \"Yes, the Cross _has_ triumphed. There it gleams over\nthe dome of St. Peter's, the mightiest church in the world. Below it,\nuntil the recent subversion of the Pope's temporal power, walked the\nmost ignorant, beggarly and criminal population in Europe. What are\nthese to the men who built up the glory of ancient Rome? What is their\ncity to the magnificent city of old, among whose ruins they walk like\npigmies amid the relics of giants? This time-eaten, weather-beaten\nColosseum saw many a gladiator 'butchered to make a Roman holiday.' But\nhas not Christian Rome witnessed many a viler spectacle? Has it not seen\nhundreds of noble men burnt alive in the name of Christ? When Rome\nwas Pagan, thought was free. Gladiatorial shows satisfied the bestial\ncraving in vulgar breasts, but the philosophers and poets were\nunfettered, and the intellect of the few was gradually achieving the\nredemption of the many. When Rome was Christian, she introduced a new\nslavery. Thought was scourged and chained, while the cruel instincts\nof the multitude were gratified with exhibitions of suffering, compared\nwith which the bloodiest arena was tame and insipid. Your Christian\nRome, in the superb metaphor of Hobbes, was but the ghost of Pagan Rome,\nsitting throned and crowned on the grave thereof; nay, a ghoul, feeding\nnot on the dead limbs of men, but on their living hearts and brains.\nLook at your Cross! Before Christ appeared it was the symbol of life;\nsince it has been the symbol of misery and humiliation; and in the\nname of your Crucified One the people have been crucified between the\nspiritual and temporal thieves. But happily your Cross has had its day.\nSt. Peter's may yet crumble before the Colosseum, and the statue of a\nBruno may outlast the walls of the Vatican.\"\n\n\n\n\nCHRIST UP TO DATE.\n\nThis is an age of weak conviction and strong pretence. Christianity is\nperishing of intellectual atrophy. Its scriptures and its dogmas are\nfalling into more and more discredit. Mr. Gladstone may defend the\nBible with passionate devotion and lofty ignorance, but better informed\nChristians see that the Old Testament is doomed. They say it must be\nread in a new light. Its science and history must be regarded as merely\nhuman; nay, its very morality savors of the barbarism of the Jews.\nOnly its best ethical teaching, and its upward aspirations, are to be\nregarded as the workings or God in the Jewish mind. Nor is this all.\nThere is a revolt against the supernaturalism of the New Testament.\nChristians like Dr. Abbott explain away the Resurrection as no physical\nfact, but a spiritual conception. The creed of Christendom is gradually\nmelting away like a northern iceberg floating into southern seas.\nPinnacle after pinnacle of glittering dogma, loosens, falls, and sinks\nfor ever. Only the central block remains intact, and we are assured it\nwill never change. The storms of controversy will never rend it; the\nrays of the sun of science will never make an impression on its marble\nfirmness. But Freethinkers smile at this cheap boast. They know the\nthaw will continue until the last fragment has melted into the infinite\nocean.\n\nThe central, indissoluble part of Christianity is Jesus Christ. He will\nnever fade, we are told. He is not for an age, but for all time. When\nall the dogmas of the Churches have perished, the divine figure of\nChrist will survive, and flourish in immortal beauty. All the world will\nyet worship him. \"Christ\" will be the universal passport in the depths\nof China, in the wilds of Africa, on the Tartar steppes, and among the\nhaunted ruins of old Asia, as well as in the present Christendom of\nEurope and America.\n\nThis prophecy is very pretty, but it lacks precision. The prophets\nforget to tell us whether the divine figure of Christ is to be human\nor supernatural; the grandest of men or the smallest of gods. If he\nbe indeed a god, they are playing strange tricks with his works and\nsayings; while, if he be indeed a mere man, they forget to explain how\nit is likely that the human race will ever look back to a single dead\nJew as the moral microcosm, the consummate spiritual flower of humanity,\nthe beacon of ideal life to every generation of voyagers on the sea of\ntime.\n\nLogic, however, must not be expected of Christians, at least in an age\nof dissolving views like the present. They will go on quoting Kenan's\nprize-essay panegyric on Christ, without any reference to the rest\nof his Vie de Jesus_. They will persist in quoting Mill's farfetched\neulogy, without referring to other passages in the essay _On Liberty.\nBut this is not all, nor even the worst. The sentimentalism of \"popular\"\nand \"advanced\" Christianity is turning Jesus Christ into a hero of\nromance. He is taking the place of King Arthur, of blameless memory;\nand we shall soon see the Apostles take the place of the Knights of the\nRound Table. Rancid orators and flatulent poets are gathering to the\nfestival Jesus Christ will make a fine speech for the one set, and fine\ncopy for the other. The professional biographers will cut in for a share\nin the spoil, and the brains of impudence will be ransacked to eke out\nthe stories of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.\n\nLives of Christ are becoming quite fashionable. Fleetwood's honest but\nprosaic book had fallen into-neglect. The very maulers of old bookstalls\nthrust out their tongues at at. The still older book of Jeremy Taylor--a\nwork of real genius and golden eloquence--was too stiff reading for an\nidle generation. Just in the nick of time the English translation\nof Kenan appeared. The first edition was less scientific than the\nthirteenth. Kenan had only just broken away from the Catholic Church;\nhe was also under the influence of his visit to Palestine; his _Vie\nde Jesus_ was therefore a sentimental Parisian romance; the smell of\npatchouli was on every page. Yet here and there the quick reader caught\nthe laugh of Voltaire.\n\nKenan's book set a new vogue. The severe, critical Strauss was laid\naside in England, and \"the Savior's\" life was \"cultivated on new\nprinciples.\" By and bye the writers and publishers found there was\n\"money in it.\" Jesus Christ could be made to pay. Dr. Farrar made\nthousands out of his trashy volumes, and his publishers netted a\nfortune. Mr. Haweis has done the same trick with four volumes. Ward\nBeecher spent his last days on a Life of Christ. Talmage is occupied\non the same labor of love--and profit. Even the Catholic Church is not\nbehindhand. Pere Didon has put forth _his_ Life of Christ in two fat\nvolumes as an antidote to the poison of Kenan. And the end is not yet.\nNevertheless we see the beginning of the end. It was bound to come.\nAfter the prose writers prance the versifiers, and Sir Edward Arnold is\nfirst in the motley procession.\n\nSir Edward Arnold's _Light of Asia_ was a fairly good piece of work. He\nhad caught the trick of Tennysonian blank-verse, and he put some of the\nbest features of Buddhism before the English public in a manner that\ncommanded attention. Standing aloof from Buddhism himself, though\nsympathising with it, he was able to keep an impartial attitude.\nFurther, he stuck to the Buddhist stories as he found them. All the\nlicense he took was that of selection and versification. But his recent\n_Light of the World_ is another matter. He dishes up Jesus Christ in it,\nand Pontius Pilate and Mary Magdalene and the Wise Men of the East, as\nfreely as Tennyson dishes up Arthur and Launcelot and Guinevere and\nthe rest of that famous company. His style, too, is Tennysonian, to a\ncertain degree. It is something like the Master's on its general level,\nbut we miss the flashing felicities, the exquisite sentence or image\nthat makes us breathless with sudden pleasure. Sir Edward's style has\nalways a smack of the _Daily Telegraph_. He is high-flown in expressing\neven small ideas, or in describing trivialities.\n\nLike a true Christian and courtier, Sir Edwin Arnold dedicates his book\nto \"the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty.\" Those who fear God must also\nhonor the king; and did not Jesus himself tell us to render unto Caesar\nthe things that be Caesar's, as well as unto God the things that be\nGod's? We presume Sir Edwin's dedication is \"with permission.\" We\nalso presume it will help the sale and promote his chance of the\npoet-laureateship.\n\nAfter the dedication comes the \"Proeme\" of eight couplets, occupying a\nseparate page, faced and backed with virgin paper.\n\nThe sovereign voice spake, once more, in mine ear: \"Write, now, a song\nunstained by any tear!\"\n\n\"What shall I write?\" I said: the voice replied: \"Write what we tell\nthee of the crucified!\"\n\n\"How shall I write,\" I said, \"who am not meet One word of that sweet\nspeaking to repeat?\"\n\n\"It shall be given unto thee! Do this thing!\" Answered the voice: \"Wash\nthy lips clean, and sing!\"\n\nThis \"proeme\" is, to say the least of it, peculiar. The \"sovereign\nvoice\" can hardly be the Queen's. It must be God Almighty's. Sir Edwin\nArnold is therefore inspired. He writes as it is \"given unto\" him. And\nbefore he begins, by divine direction, he washes his lips clean;\nthough he omits to tell us how he did it, whether with a flannel or a\npocket-handkerchief.\n\nIt is well to know that Sir Edwin is inspired. Carnal criticism is thus\ndisarmed and questions become blasphemous. But if Sir Edwin had _not_\nbeen inspired we should have offered certain remarks and put certain\nqueries. For instance, how does he know that the star of the Nativity\nwas \"a strange white star\"? May it not have been red, yellow, blue, or\ngreen--especially green? How did he discover that the Magi, or priests\nof the Zoroastrian religion, were really Buddhists and came from India?\nHad Sir Edwin less communication with the \"sovereign voice,\" we should\nhave imagined that the Magi were transformed into Buddhists for the sake\nof convenience; Sir Edwin knowing comparatively little of the Persic\nfaith, but a good deal of the Indian, and possessing a natural itch\nto display his own learning. Further we should have asked him how he\ndiscovered that by three years after the Crucifixion the Christian faith\nhad spread to Athens and Rome. According to all previous records the\nstatement is simply preposterous. But the \"sovereign voice\" has spoken\nthrough Sir Edwin Arnold, and thrown quite a fresh light on the earliest\nhistory of Christianity. Then, again, we should have been curious to\nknow why Sir Edwin accepted the legend of Mary Magdalene being the\ntenant of Magdal Tower, a place that never existed (as we thought) but\nin the geography of faith. Humanly speaking, it seemed probable that the\nlady's name had relation to head-dressing. But we live and learn, and in\nthe course of time the \"sovereign voice\" settles all these things.\n\nThere is no clear record in the gospels of Jesus Christ's visit to\nTyre, but Sir Edwin assures us he spent a few hours there--perhaps on an\nexcursion--and we bow to the \"sovereign voice.\" Nor is there a scholar\nin Christendom who regards the pretended letter from Publius Lentulus\nto the Roman Senate as anything but a puerile forgery. Yet Sir Edwin\nmentions it in a footnote, apparently with respect; indeed, he founds\nupon it his personal description of Jesus. Once again, scholarship must\nbow to the \"sovereign voice.\" By the way, however, the Lentulus epistle\ndescribes the hair of Jesus as \"wine-color.\" This is adopted by Sir\nEdwin, who construes is as \"hazel,\" though--barring inspiration and\nthe \"sovereign voice\"--it might have meant the color which is sometimes\npolitely, if not accurately, called auburn. Anyhow, the ancients were\nacquainted with various colored wines, and it is satisfactory to know\nthe precise hue intended by the gentleman who wrote the epistle of\nLentulus.\n\nSir Edwin represents Jesus as a Nazarite. Now, the Nazarites eschewed\nscissors and razors, but Sir Edwin says they parted their hair in the\nmiddle, which is another tip from the \"sovereign voice.\" Sir Edwin\nflashes his inspiration on another point. Critics are satisfied that\nthe Emperor Julian, the last of the Pagans, did _not_ cry, _Vicisti\nGalilae_! Mr. Swinburne, however, as a merely carnal poet, employed the\nlegend in his splendid \"Proserpina,\" using it with superb effect in the\nyoung Pagan's retort, \"Thou hast conquered, O pale Galilean!--thy dead\nshall go down to thee dead.\" But now the \"sovereign voice\" speaks through\nSir Edwin Arnold, and the legend must stand as history.\n\nUnder the guidance of the \"sovereign voice\" Sir Edwin is able to\nenlighten us on the physiology of angels. These creatures are usually\npainted with wings. But this is a mistake. They are wingless; for where\nthese live there blows no wind, Nor aught spreads, gross as air, nor any\nkind Of substance, whereby spirits' march is stopped.\n\nSir Edwin knows all about them. Angels do not need wings, and have none,\nmoving apparently _in vacuo_. But what havoc this truth would make in\nthe picture galleries of Europe. Raphael himself was mistaken. He took\nangels to be a species of fowl, whereas they are--well, Sir Edwin does\nnot tell us. He tells us what they are _not_. What they are is, as\nusual, left to the fancy of the reader, who pays his money and takes his\nchoice. Only he must beware of _wings_.\n\nPositively the most gratifying thing in Sir Edwin's book is this. Under\nthe influence of the \"sovereign voice\" he is able to tell us how God\nAlmighty likes to be designated. Perhaps it is better not to name him at\nall, but if we _must_ name him--and it seems hard to refrain from some\nterm or other--we should call him _Eloi_. That is what Jesus called him,\nand we see no reason why it should not become fashionable.\n\nSir Edwin Arnold's method of dishing up Jesus Christ is certainly\nartful. It does credit to his _Daily Telegraph_ training. Everybody\nknows that one of the chief difficulties of novelists is to make their\nwonderful heroes act and talk. Sir Edwin does not jump this difficulty.\nHe shirks it. He takes up the story of Jesus after his death,\nresurrection, and ascension. Three years are allowed to elapse, to give\nthe risen Nazarene time to get clean away, and then Sir Edwin begins\nbusiness. After a preliminary section, in, which the three Magi are\nbrought upon the scene, the body of the poem opens with Mary Magdalene,\nwho does nearly all the talking to the very end. Indeed the poem should\nhave been called after her, for it is really \"Mary Magdalene on Jesus\nChrist.\" The lady gives her reminiscences--that is, Sir Edwin gives them\nfor her. By this method he is able to omit all mention of the cruder\nfeatures of the Gospel story. When Jesus played the devil with the pigs,\nfor instance, Mary Magdalene was absent, and the incident forms no part\nof her narrative. Apparently, too, she was absent, or deaf, or thinking\nof something else, when he preached hell-fire and \"believe or be\ndamned.\" And as this pretty method of Mary-Arnold selection is pursued\nthroughout, it will easily be seen that the poem is an arbitrary piece\nof highly-colored fiction, in which Jesus Christ is made to serve the\nauthor's purposes. In short it is \"Christ Up to Date.\"\n\nSir Edwin's second piece of strategy is still more transparent. Mary\nMagdalene is represented as several ladies rolled into one, and her\nhouse is a perfect museum of relics. She is Mary Magdalene, Mary of\nBethany, the woman who anointed Christ's feet, and the Mary who helped\nto embalm him. She keeps the famous alabaster box in her cabinet; she\nboards and lodges the young woman that Jesus raised from the dead; and\nher brother Lazarus is also on show when required. Lazarus, too, is many\nsingle gentlemen rolled into one. He is the resurrected man, the young\nman who was told to sell his property and give the proceeds to the poor,\nand the young man who fled stark naked at the arrest of Jesus, leaving\nhis clothes in the hands of his pursuers. This is a very convenient\nplan. It is history made easy, or the art of poetical bam-boozling.\n\nMary Magdalene has a long talk with Pontius Pilate, who is haunted by\nthe memory of the pale Galilean. Afterwards she has several days' talk\nwith an old Indian, who turns out to be the sole survivor of those three\nwise men from the East, come to find out all about the King of the\nJews. His two colleagues had died without satisfying their curiosity.\nHe himself did without news for thirty-six years, and only went back to\nPalestine after the King of the Jews had ended his career; the visit, of\ncourse, being timed to suit Sir Edwin Arnold's convenience.\n\nThroughout the poem Mary Magdalene talks. Arnoldese. Here is a typical\npassage.\n\n\"It may be there shall come in after days--When this Good Spell is\nspread--some later scribes, Some far-off Pharisees, will take His\nlaw,--Written with Love's light fingers on the heart, Not stamped\non stone 'mid glare of lightning-fork--Will take, and make its code\nincorporate; And from its grace write grim phylacteries To deck the head\nof dressed Authority; And from its golden mysteries forge keys To jingle\nin the belt of pious pride.\"\n\nCan anyone imagine the seven-devilled Mary Magdalene conversing in this\nway?\n\nConsidered in the light of its title this poem is a mistake and a\nmonstrous failure. It is also labored and full of \"fine writing.\" Not\nonly are the Gospel story and the teachings of Jesus played fast and\nloose with, but the simplest things are narrated in grandiose language,\nwith a perfect glut of fanciful imagery, fetched in not to illustrate\nbut to adorn. Here and there, however, the language of Jesus is\nparaphrased and damnably spoiled. What reader of the Gospes does not\nremember the exquisite English in which our translators have rendered\nthe lament over Jerusalem? Sir Edwin parodies it as follows:--\n\nHow oft I would have gathered all thy children in As a hen clucks her\nchickens to her wings.\n\nSurely this is perfectly ridiculous. The collecting and sheltering are\nput into the background by that dreadful \"cluck,\" and the reader is\nforced to imagine Jesus as a clucking hen. On the whole, the Gospel\nwriters were better artists than Sir Edwin Arnold.\n\nTo conclude. The poem contains plenty of \"fine writing\" and some good\nlines. But as a whole it is \"neither fish, flesh, fowl, nor good red\nherring.\" As a picture of Jesus Christ it is a laborious absurdity; as\na marketable volume it may be successful; and as a sample of Sir\nEdwin Arnold's powers and accomplishments it will perhaps impose on\nhalf-educated sentimentalists.\n\n\n\n\nSECULARISM AND CHRISTIANITY.\n\n     A Letter to the \"_Suffolk Chronicle_,\" January 8, 1893.\n\nSir,--A friend has favored me with a copy of your last issue, containing\na long report of the Rev. W. E. Blomfield's sermon at Turret Green\nChapel, apparently in reply to my lecture on \"Secularism superior to\nChristianity.\" Mr. Blomfield declines to meet me in set debate, on the\nground that I am not \"a _reverent_ Freethinker,\" which is indeed true;\nbut I observe that he does not really mind arguing with me, only he\nprefers to do it where I cannot answer him.\n\nMr. Blomfield finds the pulpit a safe place for what can hardly be\ncalled the courtesies of discussion. He refers to certain remarks\nof mine (I presume) as \"petty jokes and witticisms fit only for the\ntap-room of a fourth-rate tavern.\" I will not dispute the description.\nI defer to Mr. Blomfield's superior knowledge of taverns and tap-rooms.\n\nI notice Mr. Blomfield's great parade of \"reverence.\" I notice also\nthat he speaks of Freethought arguments or objections as \"short-sighted\nfolly\" and \"sheer nonsense.\" I judge, therefore, that \"reverence\" is not\nintended by Mr. Blomfield to be reciprocal. He claims a monopoly of it\nfor his own opinions.\n\nIf he would only take the trouble to think about the matter, it might\noccur to him that \"reverence\" is not, properly speaking, a preliminary\nbut a result. Let us have inquiry and discussion first and \"reverence\"\nafterwards. If I find anything to revere I shall not need Mr.\nBlomfield's admonitions. I revere truth, goodness, and heroism, though I\ncannot revere what I regard as false or absurd. \"Reverence\" is often the\ndemand that imposture makes on honesty and superstition on intelligence.\nLong faces are highly valued by the professors of mystery.\n\nMr. Blomfield did not hear my lecture. Had he done so he would have\nfound an answer to many of his questions. It is all very well to bid the\nIpswich people to \"Beware of false prophets,\" but it is better to hear\nbefore condemning.\n\nHow much attention, Mr. Blomfield asks, am I to give to this world and\nhow much to another? Just as much as they deserve. We know a great deal\nabout this world, and may learn more. There are plenty of guesses about\nanother world, but no knowledge. It is easy to ask \"Is there a future\nlife?\" but we must die to find out. Meanwhile this life confronts us,\nwith its hard duties and legitimate pleasures. It is our wisdom to make\nthe best of it, on the rational belief that, if there should be a future\nlife--which no one is in a position to affirm or deny--this must be the\nbest preparation for it, whether our future be decided by evolution or\ndivine justice.\n\nMr. Blomfield's arguments against Utility as the test of conduct\nwere answered in my lecture. He says the principle is of difficult\napplication. So are all principles in intricate cases; why else have\nChristian divines written so many tons of casuistry? In any case the\nUtilitarian principle is the only one which is honored in practice.\nOther principles do very well on Sunday, but they are cast aside on\nMonday. The only question asked by statesmen, county councillors, School\nBoard members, or other public representatives, is \"Will the proposal\ntend to benefit the people?\" This can be debated and settled. \"Is it\naccording to the will of God?\" is a question to set people by the ears\nand raise an endless quarrel.\n\nMr. Blomfield says the fear of God saved poor Joseph, yet I dare say\nPotiphar's wife was a religious woman. The will of God sanctions many\ncrimes. It tells the Thug to kill travellers; it told the Inquisition to\ntorture and burn heretics; it told the Catholics and Protestants to rack\nand slaughter witches; it told Christians and Mohammedans to fight each\nother on hundreds of bloody battle-fields; it tells Christians now to\nkeep up laws against liberty of thought. There never was a time when\nthese things would not have been denounced by Secularism as crimes\nagainst humanity.\n\nMotives to morality do not come from religion. They come from our\nsocial sympathies. Preach to a tiger and he will eat you. Differ from a\nTorquemada and he will burn you. When one man wants another to help him,\nhe does not judge by the name of his sect, but by the glance of his eye\nand the lines of his mouth. Some men are born philanthropists, others\nare born criminals; between these are multitudes in whom good and bad\ntendencies are variously mixed, and who may be made better or worse by\neducation and environment. The late Professor Clifford was an Atheist,\nand one of the gentlest, kindest, and tenderest men that ever lived. Jay\nGould was a member of a Christian church and sometimes went round with\nthe plate. He left twenty millions of money, and not a penny to any\ncharity or good cause. Lick, the Freethinker, built and endowed the\ngreat observatory which is one of the glories of America.\n\nI do not propose to follow Mr. Blomfield in his excursion into ancient\nhistory. I will only remark that if he thinks there was any lack\nof \"religion\" in the worst days of the Pagan world he is very much\nmistaken. Coming to more modern times, I decline to accept his present\nof priests and popes who were \"atheistic.\" Whatever they were is a\ndomestic question for the Christian Church. Nor need I discuss\nLuther's \"fresh vision of God.\" He was a great man, but a savage\ncontroversialist, who called his opponents asses, swine, foxes, geese,\nand fools; which, I suppose, is worthy of the tap-room of a _first-rate_\ntavern. As to the \"awful collapse\" of \"unbelieving France\" I do not\nknow when it occurred. It was certainly not France that collapsed in the\nRevolution. The monarchy, the aristocracy, and the Church collapsed; but\nFrance inaugurated a new epoch of modern history.\n\nWith respect to prayer, on which Mr. Blomfield is very hazy, I would\nlike to discriminate between its \"objective value\" and its \"subjective\nbenefits.\" Prayer as a means of inducing patience when you do not get\nwhat you ask for, is outside my province. I leave it to the clergy.\nPrayer as a means of obtaining what you require is my concern, and I\ndefy Mr. Blomfield to prove a single case. Yet if prayer is not answered\nobjectively, the Secular principle holds the field that science is man's\nonly providence. I am aware that Christians employ doctors, insure their\nhouses, and put lightning-conductors over their church steeples. They\nleave as little to God as possible. Mr. Blomfield says this is quite\nright, and I agree with him; but I will give him, if he cannot find\nthem, twenty texts in support of the honest old doctrine of prayer from\nthe New Testament.\n\nMr. Blomfield tells me I do not understand the Bible. Well, as I am\nnot exactly a fool, the fault may be in the book. Why was it not made\nplainer? Why did God write it so that thousands of gentlemen get a fine\nliving by explaining it--in all sorts of different ways? I am reminded\nthat the Bible is not a handbook of physical science. But did the Church\nthink so when it imprisoned Galileo and made him swear that the earth\ndid _not_ go round the sun? Mr. Blomfield says that \"Genesis gives an\naccount of the origin of matter, and of life, and, finally, of man,\nwhich science has not disproved, on the admission of her most eminent\nsons.\" The Bible is a handbook of science after all then! But what has\nscience to do with the origin of matter? The origin of life is still\nan open question. The origin of man is _not_ an open question. Genesis\ngives us a piece of mythology; Darwin gave us the truth. Among the\neminent sons of science who is greater than he? Yet he has utterly\nexploded the Adam and Eve story. Darwin has left it on record that he\nrejected all revelation, and that for nearly forty years of his life\nhe was a disbeliever in Christianity. He did subscribe to a Missionary\nSociety that was attempting to reform South American savages, but he\nnever subscribed a penny for the propagation of Christianity in England.\nI myself might think Christianity good for savages.\n\nIf I understand Mr. Blomfield rightly, God was unable to teach the Jews\nany faster than he did, although he is both omnipotent and omniscient.\nWere I to imitate Mr. Blomfield I should call this \"sheer nonsense.\"\n\nIn my lecture I stated that the Old Testament sanctioned slavery, and\nthat there was not a word against it in the New Testament. Mr. Blomfield\nreplies that \"the principles of the New Testament sapped the foundations\nof that system.\" But let us deal with one question at a time. Let the\nreverend gentleman indicate the text which I say does not exist. As for\nthe \"generous spirit\" of the Old Testament laws about slavery, am I to\nfind it in the texts allowing the Jews to buy and sell the heathen,\nto enslave their own countrymen, to appropriate their children born in\nslavery, and to beat them to death providing they did not expire within\nforty-eight hours?\n\nMy point is not that the Jews held slaves. That was common in ancient\ntimes. I merely take objection to the doctrine that God laid down the\nslavery laws of the Old Testament.\n\nWith regard to Jesus Christ, I am not aware that I have spoken of him\nas a \"trickster.\" Kenan, however, whom Mr. Blomfield appears to admire,\nsuggests that the raising of Lazarus was a performance arranged between\nhim and Jesus. This is a line of criticism I have never attempted. I do\nnot regard the New Testament miracles as actual occurrences, but as the\nproducts of Christian imagination.\n\nMr. Blomfield is angry with me for saying that the books of the Bible\nare mostly anonymous, yet he declares that \"their anonymity is little\nagainst them.\" I leave Mr. Blomfield to settle the point of fact with\nChristian writers like Canon Driver and Professor Bruce. With respect to\nthe New Testament, I am told that my statement is \"palpably incorrect.\"\nBut what are the facts? With the exception of four of Paul's epistles,\nand perhaps the first of Peter, the whole of the New Testament books are\nanonymous, in the sense that they were not written--as we have them--by\nthe men whose names they bear, and that no one knows who _did_ write\nthem. This is practically admitted by Christian scholars, and I am ready\nto maintain it in discussion with Mr. Blomfield.\n\nMr. Blomfield talks very freely, in conclusion, about the \"fruits\"\nof Christianity and Secularism. He even condescends to personal\ncomparisons, which I warn him are dangerous. He compares Spurgeon with\nBradlaugh. Well, the one swam with the stream, and the other against it;\nthe one lived in the world's smile, the other in the world's frown;\nthe one enjoyed every comfort and many luxuries, the other was poor,\nworried, and harassed into his grave. Spurgeon was no doubt a good man,\nbut Bradlaugh was the more heroic figure.\n\nJesus Christ said some good things. Among them was the injunction not to\nlet one hand know the other's charity. Mr. Blomfield disregards this. He\nchallenges Secularists to a comparison. He asks where are our Secularist\nhospitals. We do not believe in such things. Sectarianism in charity is\na Christian vice. On the other hand, our party is comparatively\nsmall and poor, and Christian laws prevent our holding any trusts for\nSecularism. Still, we do attend to our own poor as well as we can.\nOur Benevolent Fund is sufficient for the relief of those who apply in\ndistress. We cannot build \"almshouses,\" but \"Atheist widows\" are not\nneglected. On the whole, however, we are not so loud as the Christians\nin praise of \"charity,\" Much of it is very degrading. If we had justice\nin society there would be less for \"charity\" to do.\n\nIt is obvious that Mr. Blomfield picks his fruits of Christianity\nwith great discrimination. Is it logical to select all you admire in\nChristian countries and attribute it to Christianity? The same process\nwould prove the excellence of Buddhism, Brahminism, and Mohammedanism.\nThere are almshouses and hospitals in Chrisendom, but there are\nalso workhouses, gin-palaces, brothels, and prisons. Drunkenness,\nprostitution, and gambling, are the special vices of Christian nations.\nIt is Christian countries that build ironclads and make cannon, gatling\nguns, deadly rifles, and terrible explosives. It is Christians who do\nmost of the fighting on this planet.\n\nMr. Blomfield may or may not consider these things. I scarcely expect\nhim to reply. He prefers the \"humble, obedient heart\" to the \"curious\nintellect.\" At any rate he preaches the preference to the young men of\nIpswich. For my part, I hope they will reject the counsel. I trust they\nwill read, inquire, and think for themselves. Their \"intellect\" should\nhave enough \"curiosity\" to be satisfied as to the truth of what they are\nasked to believe.\n\n\n\n\nALTAR AND THRONE. *\n\n     * June 11, 1893.\n\nMyriads of honest, industrious women in England are laboring excessively\nfor a bare pittance; day after day they go through the same monotonous\nand exhausting round of toil; and the end of it all is a bit of bread\nfor some who are dear to them, and a squalid, cheerless existence\nfor themselves. Sometimes, when work is scarce, and sheer starvation\nconfronts them, they are driven to the last resource of selling their\nbodies, and enter the unspeakable inferno of prostitution.\n\nEngland has thousands of other women who are lapped in an enervating and\ndegrading luxury--without occupation, with none but frivolous\ncares--who fancy themselves infinitely superior to their poor, slaving,\nill-dressed, and toilworn sisters.\n\nThese disparities are as great as any that existed in the \"infamous\"\ndays of pagan Rome. The world has had eighteen hundred years of\nChristianity, and its \"salvation\" is still in the dim and distant\nfuture.\n\nWhile the clergy have preached a hell after death, the people have\nbeen left simmering in a real hell in this life--the hell of ignorance,\npoverty, oppression, and misery.\n\nChristianity is now boasting of what it is _going_ to do. It says it\nbegins to understand Jesus Christ; it means to follows in its Master's\nfootsteps; it will strain every nerve to raise the downtrodden, to\nbetter the condition of the poor, and to give true comfort to the\nafflicted. There are some individual Christians who mean this and try\nto practise it. But for the most part these fine new promises of\nChristianity are nothing but sermon decorations, words for deeds,\nsawdust for bread, flash notes for good coin of the realm.\n\nWe have but to look around us at this moment to see the true fruits of\nChristianity. It is the same fruit that _all_ religion bears. Under\nthe pretence of being the best friend of the people, Christianity (like\nother religions) has been the real friend of the privileged classes. It\nhas also fostered a public sentiment in this direction. To prove this\nlet us take a case in point.\n\nSome time ago an English princess lost her lover by death. She was said\nto be inconsolable. But before long it was whispered that she was to\nmarry her lover's brother. At length it was announced in the papers,\nonly to be contradicted as a false rumor which very much hurt the\nfeelings of all the parties it concerned. Those who understood the\nnature of such contradictions smiled. By and bye the contradicted rumor\nwas announced authoritatively. Princess May _was_ to marry the gentleman\nin question. \"Now is the winter of our discontent made glorious summer\nby this sun of York.\"\n\nAll England was soon astir with loyal enthusiasm, and people were\neverywhere set subscribing for presents to the dear Princess. Soldiers\nand sailors are sweated. Pressure is put upon theatrical people. \"You\n_must_ give _something_,\" is the cry. The City of London is to spend\n\u00a32,500 on a necklace. One lady gives the royal couple a splendid country\nhouse with magnificent grounds. Committees are formed right and left,\nand tens of thousands of pounds will be raised, on the ground that \"unto\nhim that hath shall be given\"--in some cases, also, without neglecting\nthe rest of the text, that \"from him that hath not shall be taken away\neven that which he hath.\"\n\nWho is the Princess May? Very likely a pleasant young lady. Happily\nthere are myriads of them in England. What has she ever done? She took\nthe trouble to be born. Her husband that is to be has an income from\n\"the service.\" His father has \u00a336,000 a year, voted by Parliament, for\nthe express purpose of providing for his children--in addition to his\nbig income from other sources. All things considered, it does not seem\nthat Princess May and the Duke of York are in want of anything. But\nhow many other women--to say nothing of men--_are_ in want! Is not this\nlavish generosity to a pair of royal and well-provided lovers an insult\nto the working people of England? Is it not a special insult to the\nmultitude of poor, struggling women, whose earnings are taxed to support\nthe classes who lord it over them? It may, of course, be replied that\npoor women like the idea of all these presents to the Princess. Perhaps\nthey do. But that only makes it worse. It shows their training has\ncorrupted them. The last vice of a slave is to admire his oppressor.\n\nChristianity is satisfied with this state of things. Christian ministers\nwill wink at it, when they do not bless it and approve it with a text.\nThe Archbishop of Canterbury will officiate at the royal wedding, and\ndeliver one of those courtier-like homilies which may be expected from\none who takes \u00a315,000 a year to preach the blessings of poverty and the\ndamnable nature of wealth. This is what comes of eighteen hundred years\nof the \"poor Carpenter's\" religion. His texts of renunciation are idle\nverbiage. His name is used to bamboozle the people, to despoil them, and\nto make them patient asses under their burdens.\n\nReligion and privilege go together. What does the New Testament say?\n\"Fear God and honor the king.\" Fearing God means supporting the clergy.\nHonoring the king means keeping one family in foolish luxury, as a\nsymbol of the whole system of privilege which is maintained by the\nsystematic exploitation of the people. We are crucified between two\nthieves who mock us, but do not share our cross; the spiritual thief,\nwho robs us of our birthright of mental freedom, and the temporal thief,\nwho robs us of the fruit of our labor. _Arcades ambo_.\n\nSome people will think we have written too plainly. We beg to tell them\nthat we have had to practise self-restraint. The fat would be in the\nfire with a vengeance if we gave free expression to our disgust. The\nonly hope for the future of society lies in the absolute extermination\nof Christianity. That is the superstition which fools and degrades\nEurope, and we must fight it to the death.\n\n\n\n\n\nMARTIN LUTHER.\n\nReformation Day, as it is called, was celebrated on October 31\nthroughout the Protestant part of Germany. Three hundred and\nseventy-five years have rolled by since Martin Luther broke from the\nRoman Catholic Church. Emperor William went to Wittenberg, with a great\narray of Evangelical personages; and, as usual, the Emperor made a\nspeech, which for him was excellent. \"There is no coercion,\" he said,\n\"in matters of religion. Here only free conviction of the heart is\ndecisive, and the perception of this fact is the blissful fruit of the\nReformation.\"\n\nThis is a fine-sounding declaration, but it has the misfortune to be\nuntrue. Liberty of conscience is not the fruit of the Reformation,\nbut an indirect and unintended result. Nor is liberty of conscience\na reality in any part of the German empire. Christians are allowed to\ndiffer among themselves, but Freethinkers are prosecuted for dissenting\nalike from Catholic and Protestant. Since the present Emperor's\naccession there have been many blasphemy prosecutions, sometimes for\nwhat would be regarded in other countries as very mild expressions of\ndisbelief. Several men and women have been sentenced to severe penalties\nfor exercising the right of free speech, which, in the land of Goethe,\nHeine, Strauss, and Schopenhauer, is still confined to professed\nChristians.\n\nThe Reformation, in fact, was a superficial movement. Except for its\nmoral revolt against the sale of indulgences, it touched no deep and\ndurable principle. It merely substituted an infallible Bible for an\ninfallible Church. Differences of opinion crept into the Protestant\nfold, but that was an accident, arising from the varied and discordant\nnature of the Bible itself. Every new Protestant sect had to fight as\nstrenuously for its right to exist as ever Martin Luther fought against\nthe Catholic Church. Protestantism, in short, was one priesthood saying\nto another priesthood \"We are right and you are wrong.\" The Catholic\nChurch had an immense advantage in its central organisation; the\nProtestant Church could only operate from different points; hence it was\nunable to bring about the same uniformity.\n\nThe movement that was not superficial was the scientific and humanist\nmovement, of which the Reformation was in a certain sense an episode.\nItaly and France did more for the world than Germany. Martin Luther\nwas a great fighter, but not a more heroic one than Giordano Bruno.\nMelancthon was not so important a man as Galileo. Rabelais even, with\nall his dirt and jesting, was more in the stream of progress than\nLuther, and far more than Calvin. In the long run, it is knowledge\nand idea? that rule the world. Luther was not great in knowledge,\nand certainly not great in ideas. He was a born fighter and a strong\ncharacter. His proper place is among the heroic figures of history. He\nwas a man of leading, but scarcely a man of light.\n\nLuther was violently opposed to the scientific movement. He called\nCopernicus an old fool. He would hear nothing against the accepted\nBiblical theory of the universe. Genesis was to him, as well as to\nthe Pope, the beginning and the end of sound science. Nor was he more\nfriendly to philosophy. Draper truly asserts that the leaders of the\nReformation \"were determined to banish philosophy from the Church.\"\nAristotle was villified by Luther as \"truly a devil, a horrid\ncalumniator, a wicked sycophant, a prince of darkness, a real Apollyon,\na beast, a most horrid impostor on mankind, a public and professed liar,\na goat, a complete epicure, this twice execrable Aristotle.\" Such\nwas Luther's style in controversy. We commend it to the attention of\nProtestants who rail at the _Freethinker_.\n\nLiberty of conscience is a principle of which Luther had no conception.\nHe claimed the right to think against the Pope; he denied the right of\nothers to think against himself. His attitude towards the Anabaptists\nwas fiendish. During the Peasants War he urged the authorities to\nexterminate the rebels, to \"stab, kill, and strangle them without\nmercy.\" Melancthon taught that heretics \"ought to be restrained by the\nsword.\" Luther likewise declared that whoever denied even one article of\nthe Protestant faith should be punished severely. Referring to a false\nteacher, he exclaimed, \"Drive him away as an apostle of hell; and if he\ndoes not flee, deliver him up as a seditious man to the executioner.\"\n\nHallam, Buckle, Lecky, and all reputable historians, agree that\nthe Protestant party held the same principle of persecution as the\nCatholics. It was not disputed that death was the proper punishment of\nobstinate heresy. The only dispute was--which were the heretics, and who\nshould die?\n\nLuther's influence was very great in England, as Calvin's was in\nScotland, and the leaders of the Reformation in our own country had\nno doubt as to the justice of killing men for a difference of opinion.\nCranmer taught that heretics were first to be excommunicated; if that\nmade no impression on them they were to suffer death. It satisfies one\nsense of the fitness of things that Cranmer himself perished at the\nstake. Becon taught that the duty of magistrates with regard to heretics\nwas to punish them--\"yea, and also to take them out of this life.\" This\nsame Becon called upon the temporal rulers to \"be no longer the pope's\nhangmen.\" He preferred their being the hangmen of Protestantism. Latimer\nhimself said of the Anabaptists who were executed, \"Well, let them go!\"\nBishop Jewel, the great apologist of the Protestant Church of England,\nin answering Harding the Jesuit, replies in this way to the charge of\nbeing of the brotherhood of Servetus, David George, and Joan of\nKent: \"We detected their heresies, and not you. We arraigned them; we\ncondemned them. We put them to the execution of the laws. It seemeth\nvery much to call them our brothers, because we burnt them.\"\n\nCalvin held the same persecuting doctrine. All who opposed him were\ndealt with ruthlessly. He was a veritable Pope of Geneva. His treatment\nof Servetus was infamous. But so universal was the principle on which\nCalvin acted, that even the mild Melancthon called the cruel roasting\nof Servetus at a slow fire \"a pious and memorable example for all\nposterity.\"\n\nProtestantism boasts of having asserted the right of private judgment.\nIt never did anything of the kind. Not a single leader of the\nReformation ever asserted such a principle. Erasmus did, though not in\ndecisive language; but Erasmus never belonged to the Protestant Church,\nand his humanity, no less than his philosophy, brought upon him the\nvituperation of Luther. The hero of Protestantism did not intend the\nconsequences of his revolt against Rome. He would have been appalled\nat the thought of them. He made a breach, for his own purposes, in the\ngreat wall of faith. He did not anticipate that others would widen it,\nor that the forces of reason would march through and occupy post after\npost. He simply did his own stroke of work, and we do not judge him\nby later standards. We only object to the extravagance of Protestant\nlaudation.\n\n\n\n\nTHE PRAISE OF FOLLY.\n\nWhat is the greatest novel in the English language? This is a hard\nquestion, which we shall not attempt to answer. We leave every one\nof our readers to enjoy his own selection. But the question has been\nanswered, in his own way, by a living novelist. Mr. Walter Besant\ndeclares that the greatest novel in the English language is Charles\nReade's _The Cloister and the Hearth_. That it is a _great_ book no one\nfit to judge will deny, or hesitate to affirm. It is full of adventure\nand hairbreadth escapes; it exhibits a large variety of life and\ncharacter; its wit, insight, and pathos show the mind and hand of a\nmaster; and a certain vivid actuality is derived from the fact that\nits pictures and portraits are to a large extent historical. Gerard and\nMargaret, the hero and heroine of the story, are the father and mother\nof the great Erasmus; respecting whom Charles Reade closes his book with\na noble and pregnant piece of writing.\n\n\"First scholar and divine of his epoch, he was also the heaven-born\ndramatist of his century. Some of the best scenes in this new book are\nfrom his mediaeval pen, and illumine the pages whence they come; for the\nwords of a genius, so high as his, are not born to die; their immediate\nwork upon mankind fulfilled, they may seem to lie torpid; but, at each\nfresh shower of intelligence Time pours upon their students, they prove\ntheir immortal race; they revive, they spring from the dust of great\nlibraries; they bud, they flower, they fruit, they seed, from generation\nto generation, and from age to age.\"\n\nErasmus was born at Rotterdam, probably on October 28, 1467. He was a\n\"love child.\" His father, Gerard of Tergou, being engaged to Margaret,\ndaughter of a physician of Sevenbergen, anticipated the nuptial rites.\nGerard's relations drove him from his country by ill usage; when he went\nto Rome, to earn a living by copying ancient authors, they falsely sent\nhim word that his Margaret had died; upon which he took holy orders,\nand became a sworn son of the Church. Finding his Margaret alive on\nhis return, he of course lived apart from her, and she did not marry\nanother. They had a common interest in their boy, whose education they\nsuperintended. Margaret died of the plague, when Erasmus was thirteen;\nand Gerard, inconsolable for her loss, soon followed her to the grave.\nTheir boy was left to the guardianship of relatives, who cheated him\nof his little patrimony, and compelled him to adopt a religious life.\nErasmus was thus a priest, though a very uncommon one. How curious that\nso many great wits and humorists should have worn the clerical garb! To\nmention only four, there were Rabelais, Erasmus, Swift and Sterne; each\nof whom has added to the world's gaiety, and also helped to free it from\nsuperstition. Christians who prate about the \"ridicule\" of holy things\nin which Freethinkers indulge, should be reminded that these four\npriests of the Christian religion could easily, between them, carry off\nthe palm for profanity; while for downright plain speech, not always\navoiding the nastiest of subjects, there is hardly a professed sceptic\nwho could hold a candle to them.\n\nErasmus divorced himself from religious duties as early as possible.\nHe detested the monks, regarding them for the most part as illiterate,\nbigoted, persecuting, and parasitical vermin. His life was devoted to\nliterature, and in the course of his travels he contracted a friendship\nwith the most eminent and able men of the age, including our own Sir\nThomas More, the author of the famous _Utopia_. Erasmus died on July\n12,1536. The money he had accumulated by the exercise of his pen, after\ndeducting some handsome legacies to personal friends, he left to relieve\nthe sick and poor, to marry young women, and to assist young men of good\ncharacter. This was in keeping with his professed principles. He always\nregarded _charity_ as the chief part of _useful_ religion, and thought\nthat men should help each other like brothers, instead of fighting like\nwild beasts over theology.\n\nErasmus was a contemporary of Luther, and there is an excellent Essay\nby Mr. Froude on both these great men. He gives the palm to Luther on\naccount of his courage, and thinks that Erasmus should have joined\nthe Reformation party. But the truth is that Erasmus had far more\n_intellect_ than Luther; he knew too much to be a fanatic; and while he\nlashed the vices and follies of the Catholic Church, he never left her\nfold, partly because he perceived that Luther and the Reformers were as\nmuch the slaves of exclusive dogmas as the very Schoolmen themselves.\nErasmus believed in freedom of thought, but Luther never did. To sum up\nthe difference between them in a sentence: Luther was a Theologian, and\nErasmus a Humanist. \"He was brilliantly gifted,\" says Mr. Froude, \"his\nindustry never tired, his intellect was true to itself, and no worldly\nmotives ever tempted him into insincerity.\"\n\nThe great mass of the writings of Erasmus are only of interest to\nscholars. His two popular books are the _Colloquies_ and the _Praise of\nFolly_, both written in Latin, but translated into most of the European\ntongues. The _Colloquies_ were rendered into fine, nervous English by N.\nBailey, the old lexicographer. The _Praise of Folly_, illustrated with\nHolbein's drawings, is also to be read in English, in the translation\nof Sir Roger L'Estrange; a writer who, if he was sometimes coarse and\nslangy, had a first-rate command of our language, and was never lacking\nin racy vigor.\n\nErasmus wrote the _Praise of Folly_ in the house of Sir Thomas More,\nwith whom he lodged on his arrival in England in 1510. It was completed\nin a week, and written to divert himself and his friend. A copy being\nsent to France, it was printed there, and in a few months it went\nthrough seven editions. Its contents were such, that it is no wonder, in\nthe words of Jortin, that \"he was never after this looked upon as a\ntrue son of the Church.\" In the orthodox sense of the term, it would be\ndifficult to look upon the writer of this book as a true Christian.\n\nFolly is made to speak throughout. She pronounces her own panegyric She\nrepresents herself as the mainspring of all the business and pleasure\nof this world, yes, and also of its worship and devotion. Mixed up with\ncapital fooling, there is an abundance of wisdom, and shrewd thrusts are\ndelivered at every species of imposture; nay, religion itself is treated\nwith derision, under the pretence of buffoonery.\n\nLong before Luther began his campaign against the sale of Pardons and\nIndulgences, they were satirically denounced by Erasmus. He calls them\n\"cheats,\" for the advantage of the clergy, who promise their dupes in\nreturn for their cash a lot of happiness in the next life; though, as to\ntheir own share of this happiness, the clergy \"care not how long it be\ndeferred.\" Erasmus anticipated Luther in another point. Speaking of the\nsubtle interpreters of the Bible in his day, who proved from it anything\nand everything, he says that, \"They can deal with any text of scripture\nas with a nose of wax, and knead it into what shape best suits their\ninterest.\" Quite as decisively as Luther, though with less passion\nand scurrility, he condemns the adoration of saints, which he calls a\n\"downright folly.\" Amidst a comical account of the prayers offered up to\ntheir saintships, he mentions the tokens of gratitude to them hung upon\nthe walls and ceilings of churches; and adds, very shrewdly, that he\ncould find \"no relics presented as a memorandum of any that were ever\ncured of Folly, or had been made one dram the wiser.\" Even the worship\nof the Virgin Mary is glanced at--her blind devotees being said \"to\nthink it manners now to place the mother before the Son.\"\n\nErasmus calls the monks \"a sort of brainsick fools,\" who \"seem confident\nof becoming greater proficients in divine mysteries the less they are\npoisoned with any human learning.\"  Monks, as the name denotes, should\nlive solitary; but they swarm in streets and alleys, and make\na profitable trade of beggary, to the detriment of the roadside\nmendicants. They are full of vice and religious punctilios. Some of them\nwill not touch a piece of money, but they \"make no scruple of the sin of\ndrunkenness and the lust of the flesh.\"\n\nPreachers are satirised likewise. They are little else than\nstage-players. \"Good Lord! how mimical are their gestures! What heights\nand falls in their voice! What teeming, what bawling, what singing, what\nsqueaking, what grimaces, making of mouths, apes' faces, and distorting\nof their countenance; and this art of oratory, as a choice mystery, they\nconvey down by tradition to one another.\" Yes, and the trick of it still\nlives in our Christian pulpits.\n\n\"Good old tun-bellied divines,\" and others of the species, come in\nfor their share of raillery. They know that ignorance is the mother of\ndevotion. They are great disputants, and all the logic in the world will\nnever drive them into a corner from which they cannot escape by some\n\"easy distinction.\" They discuss the absurdest and most far-fetched\nquestions, have cats' eyes that see best in the dark, and possess \"such\na piercing faculty as to see through an inch-board, and spy out\nwhat really never had any being.\" The apostles would not be able to\nunderstand their disputes without a special illumination. In a happy\nphrase, they are said to spend their time in striking \"the fire of\nsubtlety out of the flint of obscurity.\" But woe to the man who meddles\nwith them; for they are generally very hot and passionate. If you differ\nfrom them ever so little, they call upon you to recant; it you refuse\nto do so, they will brand you as a heretic and \"thunder out an\nexcommunication.\"\n\nPopes fare as badly as preachers, monks, and divines. They \"pretend\nthemselves vicars of Christ.\" Reference is made to their \"grooms,\nostlers, serving men, pimps, and somewhat else which for modesty's\nsake I shall not mention.\" They fight with a holy zeal to defend their\npossessions, and issue their bulls and excommunications most frequently\nagainst \"those who, at the instigation of the Devil, and not having the\nfear of God before their eyes, do feloniously and maliciously attempt to\nlessen and impair St. Peter's patrimony.\"\n\nSpeaking through the mouth of Folly, the biting wit of Erasmus does not\nspare Christianity itself. \"Fools,\" he says, \"for their plainness and\nsincerity of heart, have always been most acceptable to God Almighty.\"\nPrinces have ever been jealous of subjects who were too observant and\nthoughtful; and Jesus Christ, in like manner, condemns the wise and\ncrafty. He solemnly thanks his Father for hiding the mysteries of\nsalvation from the wise, and revealing them to babes; that is, says\nErasmus, _to fools_. \"Woe unto you scribes and pharisees\" means \"Woe\nunto you wise men.\"\n\nJesus seemed \"chiefly delighted with women, children, and illiterate\nfishermen.\" The blessed souls that in the day of judgment are to be\nplaced on the Savior's right hand \"are called sheep, which are the most\nsenseless and stupid of all cattle.\"\n\n\"Nor would he heal those breaches our sins had made by any other method\nthan by the 'foolishness of the cross,' published by the ignorant and\nunlearned apostles, to whom he frequently recommends the excellence\nof Folly, cautioning them against the infectiousness of wisdom, by the\nseveral examples he proposes them to imitate, such as children, lilies,\nsparrows, mustard, and such like beings, which are either wholly\ninanimate, or at least devoid of reason and ingenuity, guided by\nno other conduct than that of instinct, without care, trouble, or\ncontrivance.\"\n\n\"The Christian religion,\" Erasmus says, \"seems to have some relations\nto Folly, and no alliance at all to wisdom.\" In proof of which we are to\nobserve; _first_, that \"children, women, old men, and fools, led as\nit were by a secret impulse of nature, are always most constant in\nrepairing to church, and most zealous, devout and attentive in the\nperformance of the several parts of divine service \"; _secondly_, that\ntrue Christians invite affronts by an easy forgiveness of injuries,\nsuffer themselves like doves to be easily cheated and imposed upon,\nlove their enemies as much as their friends, banish pleasure and court\nsorrow, and wish themselves out of this world altogether. Nay, the very\nhappiness they look forward to hereafter is \"no better than a sort of\nmadness or folly.\" For those who macerate the body, and long to put on\nimmortality, are only in a kind of dream.\n\n\"They speak many things at an abrupt and incoherent rate, as if they\nwere actuated by some possessing demon; they make an inarticulate noise,\nwithout any distinguishable sense or meaning. They sometimes screw\nand distort their faces to uncouth and antic looks; at one time beyond\nmeasure cheerful, then as immoderately sullen; now sobbing, then\nlaughing, and soon after sighing, as if they were perfectly distracted,\nand out of their senses.\"\n\nBut perhaps the worst stroke of all against Christianity is the\nfollowing sly one. Folly is said to be acceptable, or at least\nexcusable, to the gods, who \"easily pass by the heedless failures of\nfools, while the miscarriages of such as are known to have more wit\nshall very hardly obtain a pardon.\"\n\nDid space permit we might give several extracts from the _Praise of\nFolly_, showing that Erasmus could speed the shafts of his satire at\nthe very essentials of religion, such as prayer and providence. Were he\nliving now, we may be sure that he would be in the van of the Army of\nLiberation. Living when he did, he performed a high and useful task. His\nkeen, bright sword played havoc with much superstition and imposture. He\nmade it more difficult for the pious wranglers over what Carlyle would\ncall \"inconceivable incredibilities\" to practise their holy profession.\nCertainly he earned, and more than earned, the praise of Pope.\n\n     At length Erasmus, that great injur'd name\n     (The glory of the priesthood and the shame!)\n     Stemm'd the wild torrent of a barbarous age,\n     And drove those holy Vandals off the stage.\n\nErasmus was, in fact, the precursor of Voltaire. Physically, as well as\nintellectually, these two great men bore a certain resemblance. A glance\nat the strong, shrewd face of Erasmus is enough to show that he was not\na man to be easily imposed upon; and the square chin, and firm mouth,\nbespeak a determination, which, if it did not run to martyrdom, was\nsufficient to carry its possessor through hardship and difficulty in the\nadvocacy of his ideals.\n\nRome, says, the proverb, was not built in a day; and Christianity was\nnot built in a century. It took hundreds of years to complete, as it\nis taking hundreds of years to dissolve. For this reason it is a very\ncomplicated structure. There is something in it for all sorts of taste.\nThose who like metaphysics will find it in Paul's epistles, and in such\ndogmas as that of the Trinity. Those who like a stern creed will find\nit in the texts that formed the basis of Calvinism. And those who like\nsomething milder will find it in such texts as \"Love one another\" and\n\"Father forgive them, they know not what they do.\"\n\nIt must be confessed, however, that the terrible aspects of Christianity\nhave been most in evidence. Religion had its first roots in ignorance\nand terror, and it must continue to derive sustenance from them or\nperish. People were never allured by the simple prospect of heaven; they\nwere frightened by the awful prospect of hell. Of course the two things\nwere always more or less mixed. The recipe was brimstone and treacle,\nbut the brimstone predominated, and was the more operative ingredient.\n\nPresent-day sermons tell us chiefly of God's goodness; older sermons\ntell us chiefly of what is called his justice. Puritan discourses, of\nthe seventeenth century, were largely occupied in telling people that\nmost of them _would_ be damned, and explaining to them how just and\nlogical it was that they _should_ be damned. It was a sort of treatment\nthey should really be thankful for; and, instead of protesting against\nit, they should take it with folded hands and grateful submission.\n\nHow many preachers have depicted the torments of the damned! How many\nhave described the fate of lost souls! They positively delighted in the\ntask, as corrupted organs of smell will sometimes delight in abominable\nstenches. Even the average Christian has regarded damnation--especially\nthe damnation of other people--with remarkable complacency, as a part\nof the established economy of the universe. But now and then a superior\nspirit revolted against it instinctively. Thus we hear of Gregory the\nGreat, in an age when it was devoutly believed that the noblest Pagans\nwere all in hell, being deeply impressed with the splendid virtues of\nthe emperor Trajan, and begging for his release; a prayer which\n(the legend says) was granted, with a caveat that it should never be\nrepeated. Thus, also, we hear of the great Aquinas kneeling all night\non the stone floor of his cell, passionately beseeching God to save the\nDevil.\n\nThis revolt against eternal damnation has mightily increased. Civilised\nmen and women will not--positively _will_ not--be damned at the old\nrate. The clergy are obliged to accommodate their preaching to the\naltered circumstances; hence we hear of \"Eternal Hope,\" and \"Ultimate\nSalvation,\" and similar brands on the new bottles in which they seek to\npour the diluted old wine of theology.\n\nArchdeacon Farrar is the type of this new school--at least in the Church\nof England. He is a wealthy pluralist; in addition to which he earns a\nlarge income as a writer of sentimental books, that immensely tickle\nthe flabby souls of \"respectable\" Christians. Not quite illiterate, yet\nnowise thoughtful, these people are semi-orthodox and temporising. They\ntake the old creed with a faint dash of heresy. Hell, at any rate, they\nlike to see cooled a bit, or at least shortened; and Archdeacon Farrar\nsatisfies them with a Hell which is not everlasting, but only eternal.\nWe believe that Dr. Farrar expressed a faint hope that Charles Bradlaugh\nhad not gone to hell. It was just possible that he might get a gallery\nseat in the place where the Archdeacon is booked for a stall. Dr. Farrar\nis not sure that all the people who were thought to go to hell really go\nthere. He entertains a mild doubt upon the subject. Nor does he believe\nthat hell is simply punitive. He thinks it is purgative. After a billion\nyears or so the ladies and gentlemen in the pit may hope to be promoted\nto the upper circles. Some of them, however, who are desperate and\nimpenitent, and perfectly impervious to the sulphur treatment, will\nhave to remain in hell forever. The door will be closed upon them as\nincorrigible and irredeemable; and the saints in heaven will go on\nsinging, and harping, and jigging, regardlesss of these obstinate\nwretches, these ultimate failures, these lost souls, these everlasting\ninheritors of perdition.\n\nHumanity is growing day by day. So is common sense. Every decently\neducated person will soon insist on the abolition of hell. The idea of a\nlost soul will not be tolerated.\n\nA theologian of painful genius (in its way) imagined a lost soul in\nhell. He had been agonising for ages. At last he asked a gaoler \"What\nhour is it?\" and the answer came \"Eternity!\"\n\nThoughtful, sensitive men and women, in ever increasing number, loathe\nsuch teaching, and turn with disgust from those who offer it to their\nfellows.\n\nWe are not aware that men have souls, but if they have, why should any\nsoul be _lost_? We are not aware that there is a God, but if there is,\nwhy should he _let_ any soul be lost? Sending souls to hell at all is\nonly punishing his own failures. If he is omnipotent he could have made\nthem as he pleased, and if they do not please him it is not their fault,\nbut his own. Let it be distinctly understood that a creator has no right\nover his creatures; it is the creatures who have a right to the best\nassistance of their creator. The contrary doctrine comes down to us\nfrom the \"good old times\" when children had no rights, and parents had\nabsolute power of life and death over them.\n\nIn the same way, God had absolute power over his creatures; he was the\npotter and they were the clay; one vessel was made for honor, and one\nfor dishonor; one for heaven, and one for hell. But civilisation has\nchanged our conceptions. We regard the parent as responsible for the\nchild, and God is responsible for the welfare of his creatures. A single\n\"lost soul\" would prove the malignity or imbecility of \"our father which\nart in heaven.\"\n\n\n\n\nHAPPY IN HELL.\n\nProfessor St. George Mivart is a very useful man to the Jesuits. He\nplays the jackal to their lion; or, it might be said, the cat to their\nmonkey. Some time ago he argued that Catholicism and Darwinism were in\nthe happiest agreement; that the Catholic Church was not committed, like\nthe Protestant Church, to a cast-iron theory of Inspiration; and that\nhe was quite prepared to find that all the real Word of God in the Bible\nmight be printed in a very small book and easily carried in a waistcoat\npocket. That article appeared in the _Nineteenth Century_. In the\ncurrent number of the same review Mr. Mivart has another theological\narticle on \"Happiness in Hell.\" He says he took advice before writing\nit, so he speaks with permission, if not with authority. Such an\narticle, being a kind of feeler, was better as the work of a layman. If\nit did not answer, the Church was not committed; if it did answer, the\nChurch's professional penmen could follow it up with something more\ndecisive.\n\nProfessor Mivart perceives, like the Bishop of Chester, that\nChristianity _must_ alter its teaching with respect to Hell, or lose\nits hold on the educated, the thoughtful, and the humane. \"Not a few\npersons,\" he says, \"have abandoned Christianity on account of this\ndogma.\" The \"more highly evolved moral perceptions\" of to-day are\n\"shocked beyond expression at the doctrine that countless multitudes\nof mankind will burn for ever in hell fire, out of which there is no\npossible redemption.\" Father Pinamonti's _Hell Open to Christians_ is\nstigmatised as \"repulsive,\" and its pictures as \"revolting.\" Yet it\nis issued \"with authority,\" and Mr. Mivart falls short of the truth in\nadmitting it has never \"incurred any condemnation.\" This little fact\nseems a barrier to his attempt at proving that the Catholic Church is\nnot committed to the doctrine of a hell of real fire and everlasting\nagony.\n\n\"Abandon all hope, ye who enter here\" wrote Dante over his Inferno,\nand Mr. Mivart allows that \"the words truly express what was the\nalmost universal belief of Christians for many centuries.\" That belief\nflourished under the wing of an infallible Church; and now Mr. Mivart, a\nmember of this same infallible Church, comes forward to declare that\nthe belief was a mistake. Nevertheless, he argues, the clergy of former\ntimes did right to preach hell hot and strong, stuff it with fire, and\nkeep it burning for ever. They had coarse and ignorant people to deal\nwith, and were obliged to use realistic language. Besides, it was\nnecessary to exaggerate, in order to bring out the infinite contrast\nbetween heaven and hell, the elect and the reprobates, the saved and the\ndamned. Mr. Mivart maintains, therefore, that the old representation of\nhell \"has not caused the least practical error or misled anyone by one\njot or tittle\"--which is as bold, or, as some would say, as impudent a\nstatement as could be well conceived.\n\nBriefly stated, Mr. Mivart's contention is that the fire of hell is\nfigurative. The pains of damnation, even in the case of the worst of\nsinners, have not been liberally described by Popes and Councils. \"What\nis meant by the expression 'hell fire' has never been defined,\" says\nMr. Mivart. Perhaps not. There are some things which, for practical\npurposes, do not need definition, and _fire_ is one of them. Nor is it\ngreatly to the purpose to say that \"Saint Augustine distinctly declares\nour ignorance about it.\" Saint Augustine was not God Almighty. Ample\nset-offs to this Father may be found in the pages of Dr. Pusey's _What\nis of Faith as to Everlasting Punishment?_ Besides, if fire does not\nmean fire, if torment does not mean torment, and everlasting does not\nmean everlasting, perhaps hell does not mean hell; in which case, it is\na waste of time to argue about details, when the whole establishment, to\nuse a Shakespearian epithet, is simply \"tropical.\"\n\n\"Some positive suffering,\" thinks Mr. Mivart, \"will never cease for\nthose who have voluntarily and deliberately cast away from them their\nsupreme beatitude.\" Do you want to know what this positive suffering\nis? Well, wait till you get there. All in good time. Whatever it is,\nthe \"unbelievers\" will get _their_ share of it. The editor of the\n_Freethinker_ may look out for a double dose. Professor Huxley will not\nescape. He is an aggressive Agnostic; one of those persons who, in the\ngraceful language of Mivartian civility, do not \"possess even a rudiment\nof humility or aspiration after goodness.\" \"Surely,\" exclaims our new\nGuide to Hell, \"surely if there is a sin which, on merely Theistic\nprinciples, merits the severest pains of hell, it is the authorship of\nan irreligious book.\" Which leads _us_ in turn to exclaim, \"Surely, yea\nthrice surely, will hell never be wholly abolished or deprived of its\nlast torture-chamber, while Christians require a painful place for those\nwho boldly differ from them.\" Mr. Mivart, it is true, confesses that\n\"those who are disturbed and distressed by difficulties about hell\ninclude many among the best of mankind.\" But they must not write\nirreligious books on the subject. They must wait, in patience and\nmeekness, until Mr. Mivart gives them satisfaction.\n\nLet us now summarise Mr. Mivart's position. Uni-versalism, or the final\nrestitution of all men, he rejects as \"utterly irreconcilable with\nCatholic doctrine.\" Those who are saved go to heaven--after various\ndelays in purgatory--and enjoy the Beatific Vision for ever. Those who\nare lost go to hell and remain there for all eternity. They lose the\nBeatific Vision, and that is their chief punishment. But hell is not a\nreally dreadful place--except, of course, for the writers of irreligious\nbooks. It may have its equator, and perhaps its poles; but between them\nare vast regions of temperate clime and grateful soil. The inhabitants\nare in a kind of harmony with their environment. They are even under a\nlaw of evolution, and \"the existence of the damned is one of progress\nand gradual amelioration.\" We suppose it may be said, in the words of\nNapoleon, that the road is open to talent; and enterprising \"damned\nones\" may cry with truth--\"Better to reign in hell than serve in\nheaven.\"\n\nHell must be regarded as a most desirable place. Mr. Mivart knows\nall about it, and we have his authority for saying it is \"an abode of\nhappiness transcending all our most vivid anticipations, so that man's\nnatural capacity for happiness is there gratified to the very utmost.\"\nAnd this is hell! Well, as the old lady said, who would have thought it?\nVerily the brimstone has all turned to treacle.\n\nCurious! is it not? While the Protestants are discussing whether\nhell-fire is actual fire, and whether sinners are roasted for\neverlasting, or only for eternity, in steps a Catholic and declares\nthat hell is a first-class sanitarium, far superior to the east-end of\nLondon, better than Bournemouth, and ahead of Naples and Mentone. \"Be\nhappy in heaven,\" he cries, \"and if you won't, why, damn you, be happy\nin hell.\"\n\nBut before we leave Mr. Mivart we have a parting word to say. He admits\nthe comparative novelty of his view of hell. \"Our age,\" he says, \"has\ndeveloped not only a great regard for human life, but also for the\nsufferings of the brute creation.\" This has led to a moral revolt\nagainst the old doctrine of eternal torment, and the Church is under the\nnecessity of presenting the idea of hell in a fresh and less revolting\nfashion. Precisely so. It is not theology which purifies humanity, but\nhumanity which purifies theology. Man civilises himself first, and his\ngods afterwards, and the priest walks at the tail of the procession.*\n\n     * Professor Mivart is a man to be pitied. First of all, his\n     views on Hell were opposed by Father Clarke, against whom\n     the hell-reformer defended himself. Last of all, however,\n     Professor Mivart's articles on this subject were placed upon\n     the Index of Prohibited Books, which no good Catholic is\n     allowed to read, except by special permission. Rome had\n     spoken, and the Professor submitted himself to Holy Mother\n     Church. In doing so, he destroyed the value of his judgment\n     on any question whatever, since he submits not to argument,\n     but to authority.\n\n\n\n\nTHE ACT OF GOD.\n\nA CURIOUS litigation has just been decided at the Spalding County Court.\nThe Great Northern Railway was sued for damages by a farmer, who had\nsent a quantity of potatoes to London shortly before Christmas, which\nwere not delivered for nearly ten days, and were then found to be\nspoiled by the frost. The Company's defence was that a dense fog\nprevailed during the Christmas week, and disorganised the traffic; that\neverything was done to facilitate the transit of goods; and that, as\nthe fog was the act of God, there was no liability for damage by delay.\nAfter an hour's deliberation, the jury returned a verdict for the\ndefendants, and judgment was given them with costs.\n\nWe sincerely pity that Lincolnshire farmer. It is very hard lines to\nreceive only thirteen and fourpence for four tons of potatoes; and\nharder still to pay the whole of that sum, and a good deal more, for\nattempting to obtain compensation. The poor man is absolutely without\na remedy. The person who delayed and rotted his potatoes is called\nGod, but no one knows where he resides, and it is impossible to serve\na summons upon him, even if a court of justice would grant one. God\nappears to be the chartered libertine of this planet. He destroys what\nhe pleases, and no one is able to make him pay damages.\n\nChristians may call this \"blasphemous.\" But calling names is no\nargument. Certainly it will not pay for that farmer's potatoes. We fail\nto see where the blasphemy comes in. An English judge and jury have\naccepted the Great Northern Railway Company's plea that the fog was the\nact of God. We simply take our stand upon their verdict and judgment.\nAnd we tell the Christians that if God sent the fog--as the judge and\njury allow--he has a great deal more to answer for than four tons of\nrotted potatoes. That terrible fog cost London a gas bill amounting to\ntwenty or thirty thousand pounds. It is impossible to estimate the cost\nto the community of delayed traffic and suspended business. Hundreds of\npeople were suffocated or otherwise slaughtered. Millions of people\nwere made peevish or brutally ill-tempered, and there was a frightful\nincrease of reckless profanity.\n\nMany persons, doubtless, will say that God did _not_ send the fog. They\nwill assert that it came in the ordinary course of nature. But does\nnature act independently of God? Is he only responsible for _some_ of\nthe things that happen? And who is responsible for the rest?\n\nThose who still believe in the Devil may conveniently introduce him,\nit is curious, however, that they never do, except in cases of _moral_\nevil. Criminal indictments charge prisoners with acting wickedly\nunder the instigation of the Devil. But _physical_ evil is ascribed to\nJehovah. Bills of lading exonerate shipowners from liability if anything\nhappens to the cargo through \"the act of God or the Queen's enemies.\"\nOld Nick does not raise storms, stir up volcanoes, stimulate\nearthquakes, blight crops, or spread pestilence. All those destructive\npastimes are affected by his rival. Even cases of sudden death, or death\nfrom lightning are brought in by jurors as \"died by the visitation of\nGod.\" Which seems to show that a visit from God is a certain calamity.\n\nThe time will come, of course, when all this nonsense about \"the act of\nGod\" will disappear. But it will only dissappear because real belief in\nGod is dying. While men are sincere Theists they cannot help seeing God\nin the unexpected and the calamitous. That is how theology began, and\nthat is how it must continue while it has a spark of vitality. But\ntheology declines as knowledge increases. Our dread of the unknown\ndiminishes as we gain command over the forces of nature; that is, our\ndread of the unknown diminishes as we turn it into the _known_.\n\n\"The act of God\" is to be frustrated by Science. We cannot prevent\nstorms, but we are growing more able to foresee them. We cannot prevent\nthe angry waves from rising, but we can build ships to defy their\nfiercest wrath. We cannot prevent mist from ascending in certain\nconditions of sky and soil, but we can drain low-lying ground, and\nprevent the mist from being fatally charged with smoke. We cannot\nabolish the microbes with which our planet swarms, and if we could we\nshould be surrounded with intolerable putrifaction; but we can observe\nthe laws of public and private sanitation, maintain a high state of\nvitality, and make ourselves practically invulnerable.\n\nScience is the instrument for achieving the triumph of man. Ultimately\nit will subdue the planet for us, and we shall be able to exclaim with\nMr. Swinburne, \"Glory to man in the highest, for man is the master\nof things.\" The paradise the theologians dream of will be realised on\nearth. We shall not abolish death, but we shall make life strong, rich,\nand glorious, and when death comes it will bring no terror, but rest and\npeace in the shadow of its wings.\n\nMeanwhile \"the act of God\" will to some extent survive in the mental\nlife of the multitude. All prayer is based upon this superstition. Those\nwho pray for relief or exemption from storm, famine, or disease; those\nwho pray to be preserved from \"battle, murder, and sudden death\"; those\nwho pray to be saved from any evil, are, all praying against \"the act of\nGod.\" It is God who is sending the mischief, and therefore he is\nbegged to take it away or pass it on to other persons. Hamburg would be\ngrateful to God even if he transferred the cholera to Berlin. Thus do\nignorance and selfishness go hand in hand; thus does superstition cloud\nthe intellect and degrade the character.\n\n\n\n\nKEIR HARDIE ON CHRIST.\n\nFor some time the Labor leaders have been assiduously courted by the\nChurches. It is reckoned good business to have one on exhibition at\nCongresses and Conferences. Ben Tillett is in frequent request as a\npreacher. Tom Mann, who was once heterodox, is now declared by the\n_Christian Commonwealth_ to be a member of a Christian Church. \"We are\nnot aware,\" our contemporary says, \"that John Burns is opposed to the\nreligion of Jesus Christ.\"\n\nThis appropriation of the Labor leaders is an excellent piece of\nstrategy. Churches have seldom had the harmlessness of doves, but they\nhave generally had the cunning of serpents. They often stoop, but always\nto conquer. And this is precisely what they are doing in the present\ncase.\n\nA year or two ago a leading Socialist, who is also an Atheist, remarked\nto us how the clericals were creeping into the Socialist movement.\n\"Yes,\" we observed, \"and they will appropriate and stifle it. They will\ntalk about the Socialism of Jesus Christ, bamboozle your followers,\nand get them out of your control. Then the Socialism will gradually\ndisappear, and Jesus Christ will be left in sole possession of the\nfield. The clericals, in fact, will trump your best cards, if you let\nthem take part in the game.\"\n\nWe warn the Labor leaders, whether they listen to us or not, that they\nare coquetting with the historic enemy of the people. All religion is a\nconsecration of the past, and every minister is at heart a priest. The\nsocial and political object of Churches is to keep things as they are;\nor, if they _must_ be altered, to control the alteration in the\ninterest of wealth and privilege. Fine words may be uttered and popular\nsentiments may be echoed; but history teaches us that when the leaders\nof religion talk in this way, they are serving their one great purpose\nas surely as when they curse and damn the rebellious multitude.\n\nThe course of events will show whether we are right or wrong. Meanwhile\nlet us \"return to our sheep.\" Not that Mr. Keir Hardie is a sheep. We\ndon't mean that, though he is certainly being attended to by the wolves.\n\nMr. Keir Hardie has been interviewed by the _Christian Commonwealth_.\n\"His father,\" we are informed, \"is a very vigorous and militant Atheist,\nso that the son was brought up without any religious belief.\" To some\nextent we believe this is true. Mr. Hardie's brother, and another member\nof the family, attended our last lectures at Glasgow. But we do not\nunderstand that Mr. Keir Hardie was ever a professed Atheist, or a\nmember of any Freethought society. The scepticism he was \"weaned from\"\nby the Evangelical Union Church could hardly have been of a very robust\norder. He seems to have imbibed a sentimental form of Christianity as\neasily and comfortably as a cat laps milk.\n\nDuring his last election contest the statement was circulated that\nMr. Keir Hardie was an Atheist. \"Whereupon,\" we are told, \"Dr. James\nMorison, the venerable founder of the Evangelical Union, and Dr. Fergus\nFerguson, of Glasgow, both wrote in the most eulogistic terms to a\nlocal clergyman as to Mr. Hardie's moral character and religious work in\nScotland.\" This is extremely affecting. It is good to see parliamentary\ncandidates walking about with certificates of moral character--written\nout by a local minister. It is also reassuring to find that such a\ncertificate is an absolute answer to the charge of Atheism, No doubt\nMr. Keir Hardie will print the testimonial as a postscript to his next\nelection address at West Ham.\n\nMr. Keir Hardie calls himself a Christian. He does not say, however, if\nhe believes in the supernatural part of the Gospels. Does he accept\nthe New Testament miracles? Does he embrace the Incarnation and\nResurrection? If he does, he is a Christian. If he does not, he has no\nmore right to call himself a Christian than we have to be designated a\nBuddhist or a Mohammedan.\n\nThe Christianity of the schools, Mr. Keir Hardie says, is dead or dying.\nBy this he means \"the old theological sects.\" But here we should like\nhim to be more explicit. Does he think there can be a Christianity\n_without_ \"theology\"? Or does he mean that the \"sects\" comprise all\npersons who have more theology than himself?\n\nBut if the Christianity of the schools is dead or dying, the\n\"humanitarian Christianity of Christ is again coming to the front.\" Now\nwhat _is_ this humanitarian Christianity of Christ? Upon this point Mr.\nKeir Hardie throws but a single ray of light. \"The whole of Christ's\nteachings and conduct,\" he says, \"proves that he was intensely\ninterested in the bodily welfare of those with whom he came in contact\nas a preparative to their spiritual well-being.\" This is a clear\nstatement; all we now want is the clear proof. Mr. Keir Hardie should\ngive it. We believe he cannot; nay, we defy him to do so. It is idle\nto cite the so-called \"miracles of healing.\" They were occasional and\nspecial; they had as much effect on the \"bodily welfare\" of the Jewish\npeople as tickling has on the gait of an elephant; and as for\ntheir being a \"preparative to spiritual well-being,\" we may ask the\n\"humanitarian Christians of Christ\" to tell us, if they can, how much\nof this quality was afterwards displayed by the ladies and gentlemen\nwho were the lucky subjects (or objects) of Christ's miracles. Mr.\nKeir Hardie might also recollect that the said miracles, if they ever\nhappened, are of no \"bodily\" importance to the present generation.\nHumanitarians of to-day are unable to work miracles; they have to sow\nthe seed of progress, and await its natural harvest.\n\nMr. Keir Hardie is undoubtedly an earnest social reformer. We wish him\nall success in his efforts to raise the workers and procure for them a\njust share of the produce of their industry. Some of his methods may be\nquestionable without affecting his sincerity. If we all saw eye to eye\nthere would be no problems to settle. What we object to is the fond\nimagination that any light upon the labor question, or any actual social\nproblem, can be found in the teachings of Christ. Jesus of Nazareth\nnever taught industry, or forethought, or any of the robuster virtues of\ncivilisation. On one occasion he said that his kingdom was not of this\nworld. He might certainly have said so of his teaching. It is all\nvery well for Mr. Keir Hardie to assert that our \"industrial system\nis foreign to the spirit of Christianity.\" What _is_ the spirit of\nChristianity? Twenty different things in as many different minds. _Some_\nindustrial system is a necessity, and whatever it is you will never\nfind its real principles in the Gospels. Christ's one social panacea was\n\"giving to the poor,\" and this is the worst of all \"reformations.\"\nIt only disguises social evils. The world could do very well without\n\"charity\" if it only had justice and common sense.\n\nCharles Bradlaugh, the Atheist, was laughed at for advocating the\ncompulsory cultivation of waste lands. He wanted to see labor and\ncapital employed upon them, even if they yielded no rent to landlords.\nMr. Keir Hardie, the Christian, also desires to bring the people into\n\"contact with nature and mother earth,\" though his recipe, of \"open\nspaces laid down in grass\" seems ludicrously inadequate. The loss of\nthis contact, he told his interviewer, is \"accountable for much of the\nAtheism which is a natural product of city life.\" This \"tender thought\"\nwas spoken in a voice \"which sank almost to a whisper.\" Very naturally\nit struck the interviewer as \"the finest and most beautiful of Mr.\nHardie's utterances.\"\n\nBoth the interviewer and Mr. Keir Hardie forgot a fact of Christian\nhistory. Christianity spread in the towns of the Roman Empire. The\npagans were the villagers--_paganus_ meaning a countryman or rustic.\nPossibly some of the pagans said to themselves, \"Ah, this Christianity\nis a natural product of the towns.\"\n\nThe diagnosis is in both cases empirical. In a certain sense, however,\nMr. Keir Hardie has touched a truth. Progressive ideas must always\noriginate in the keen life of cities. But in another sense Mr. Keir\nHardie is mistaken. He seems to regard Atheism as a city malady, like\nrickets and anemia. Now this is untrue. It is also absurd. Mr. Keir\nHardie would find a good many of these \"afflicted\" Atheists able to make\nmincemeat of his \"humanitarian Christianity of Christ.\" He would also\nfind, if he cared to look, a great many of them in the Socialist camp.\nIt would be rare sport to see Mr. Keir Hardie defending his \"new school\"\nChristianity against the young bloods of the Fabian Society, though it\nmight necessitate the interference of the Society for the Prevention of\nCruelty.\n\nBut we do not wish to part from Mr. Keir Hardie in a spirit of sarcasm.\nIf he is a hopeless sentimentalist there is no more to be said; but, if\nhe is capable of reason in matters of religion, we appeal to him, in\nall sincerity, not to press the new wine of Humanitarianism into the\nold bottles of Christianity. He will only break the bottles and lose the\nwine. We also implore him to cease talking nonsense about Christianity\nbeing \"a life, and not a doctrine.\" It never can be the one without\nthe other. Finally, we beg him to consider what is the real value of\nChristianity if, after all these centuries, it is necessary to put\n\"humanitarian\" in front of it, in order to give it a chance in decent\nsociety.\n\n\n\n\nBLESSED BE YE POOR.\n\nA leading London newspaper, the _Daily Chronicle_, has recently opened\nit columns to a discussion of the question, \"Is Christianity Played\nOut?\" Mr. Robert Buchanan thinks that it is, and we are of the same\nopinion. But in a certain sense Christianity is _not_ played out. To\nuse a common expression, \"there's money in it.\" That is incontestable.\nDespite the \"poverty\" of the \"lower clergy,\" for whom so many appeals\nare made, the clerical business beats all others, if we compare the\namount of investment with the size of the dividend. Relatively speaking,\nthe profits are magnificent. There are curates with only a workman's\nwages, and of course they merit our deepest sympathy. It is quite\nshocking to think that a disciple of the \"_poor_ Carpenter of Nazareth\"\nhas to subsist, and support his ten children, on such a miserable\npittance. It is a calamity which calls for tears of blood. But, on the\nother hand, there are Archbishops with princely incomes, Bishops with\nlordly revenues, Deans and Canons with fine salaries and snug quarters;\nand between the two extremes of the fat bishop and the lean curate is a\nlong line of gradations, in which, if we strike an average, the result\nis very far from despicable. It may be added that while the leading\nNonconformist ministers, at least in England, do not rival the great\nChurch dignitaries in the matter of income, they often run up to a\nthousand a year and sometimes over it. Taking the average of their\nincomes, we have no hesitation in saying it is beyond what they would\nearn in the ordinary labor market. Still, so far as they are not paid\nby the State, as the Church clergy _are_, we have no personal reason for\ncomplaint. This is a free country--especially for Christians; and if\nthe lay disciples of the poor Carpenter like to pay his professional\napostles a fancy price for their work, it is no concern of ours from a\nbusiness point of view. Nevertheless, as the said apostles are _public_\nmen, who set up as other people's _teachers_, we have a right to express\nan opinion as to the consistency between their preaching and their\npractice.\n\nOur gallant colleague, Joseph Symes, who is nobly upholding the\nFreethought banner in Australia, once asked, \"Who's to be Damned if\nChristianity is True?\" Certainly, he said, the clergy stand a fine\nchance. They are more likely to go to Hades than the congregations they\npreach to. On on average they are better off. They preach, or _should_\npreach, the blessings of poverty, and the curse, nay, the damnableness,\nof wealth. According to the teaching of Jesus, as we read it in the\nSermon on the Mount, and as we find it illustrated in the parable\nof Dives and Lazarus, every pauper is pretty sure of a front seat in\nheaven; and every man of property or good income is equally sure of warm\nquarters in hell. But you do not meet parsons in workhouses, though some\nof them get a good deal of outdoor relief. Go into a country parish\nand look for the clergyman's house; you will not find it difficult\nto discover. The best residence is the squire's, the next best is the\nparson's. Everywhere the clericals appropriate as much as they can of\nthe good things of this world. They find it quite easy to worship God\nand Mammon together. The curate has his eye on a vicarage; the vicar\nhas his on a deanery; the dean has his on a bishopric. The Dissenting\nminister is open to improve his position. Sometimes he is invited to\nanother church. He wrestles with the Lord, and makes inquiries. If they\nprove satisfactory, he recognises \"a call.\" Other people, in ordinary\nbusiness, would honestly say they were accepting a better situation; but\nthe man of God is above all that, so he obeys the Lord's voice and goes\nto a position of \"greater service,\" though it would puzzle him to show\nan extra soul saved by the exchange. Yes, the poor Carpenter's apostles\nstrive to make the best of this world, and take their chance of the\nnext. They are wise in their generation; they resemble the serpent in\nthe text, however they neglect the dove. And for all these things God\nshall bring them into account--that is, if the gospel be true; for\nnothing is more certain, according to the gospel, than that the poor\nwill be saved, and those who are not poor will be damned.\n\nBenjamin Disraeli called the Conservative government of Sir Robert Peel\n\"an organised hypocrisy.\" Modern Christianity appears to us to merit\nthe same description. The note of modern apologetics is the phrase of\n\"Christ-like.\" In one respect the gentlemen who strike this note _are_\nChrist-like. They live on the gifts of the faithful, including those of\n\"rich women.\" But the likeness ends there. In other respects they are\ndissimilar to their Master. He _died_ upon the cross, and they _live_\nupon the cross. Yes, and many of them get far more on the cross than\nthey would ever get on the square.\n\nDoubtless we shall be censured in vigorous biblical language for\nspeaking so plainly. But we mean every word we say, and are prepared to\nmake it good in discussion. Men should practise what they preach. Those\nwho teach that poverty is a blessing should themselves be poor. Those\nwho teach that God Almighty cried \"Woe unto you rich!\" should avoid\nthe curse of wealth. If they do not, they are hypocrites. It is no use\nmincing the matter. Plain speech is best on such occasions. When the\ngreat Dr. Abernethy told a gouty, dyspeptic, rich patient to \"live on\nsixpence a day and earn it,\" his advice was more wholesome than the most\ndexterous rigmarole.\n\nNothing could better show than the conduct of the clergy that\nChristianity _is_ played out, if it means the teaching of the Sermon on\nthe Mount. Those who preach it cannot practise it; what is more, they do\nnot mean to. The late Archbishop of York, while Bishop of Peterborough,\nwrote a magazine article on this Sermon on the Mount, in which he urged\nthat any Society that was based upon it would go to ruin in a week. He\nwas paid at that time \u00a34,500 a year to-preach this Sermon on the Mount,\nand he did so--in the pulpit; then he mounted another rostrum, and\ncried, \"For God's sake don't practise it.\"\n\n\"Blessed be ye poor\" and \"Woe unto you rich\" are texts with which the\nChurch has bamboozled the multitude in the interest of the privileged\nclasses. The disinherited sons of earth were promised all sorts of fine\ncompensations in Kingdom-Come; meanwhile kings, aristocrats, priests,\nand all the rest of the juggling and appropriating tribe, battened on\nthe fruits of other men's labor. The poor were like the dog crossing\nthe stream, and seeing the big shadow of his piece of meat in the\nwater. \"Seize the shadow!\" the priests cried. The poor did so. But the\nsubstance-was not lost. It was snapped up and shared by priestcraft and\nprivilege.\n\nThe people have been told that the gospel is a cheap thing--without\nmoney and without price. That is the prospectus. But the gospel is\nfrightfully dear in reality. Religion costs more than education. England\nspends more in preparing her sons and daughters for the next world than\nin training them for this world. Yet the next world may be nothing but\na dream, and certainly we _know_ nothing about it; while this world is\na solid and often a solemn fact, with its business as well as its\npleasures, its work as well as its enjoyments, its duties as well as its\nprivileges. To keep people out of hell, and guide them to heaven (places\nthat only exist in the map of faith), we spend over twenty millions a\nyear. This is a sum which, if wisely devoted, would remedy the worst\nevils of human society in a single generation. It would found countless\ninstitutions of culture and innocent recreation; and, by means of\nexperiments, it would solve a host of social problems. Instead of doing\nthis, we keep up a huge army of black-coats to fight an imaginary\nDevil; yet we call ourselves a _practical_ people. Christianity has it\nroots-deep down in the _wealth_ of England, and this is the secret of\nits power, allied of course with its usurped authority over the minds\nof little children. The-churches and chapels are mostly social\ninstitutions, Sunday resorts of the \"respectable\" classes. For any\npurpose connected with the real welfare of the people Christianity\nmight just as well be dead and buried--as it will be when the people see\nthe truth.\n\n\n\n\nCONVERTED INFIDELS.\n\nChristian logic is a curious thing. There is nothing like it, we should\nimagine, in the heavens above or the waters under the earth. Certainly\nthere is nothing like it on the earth itself, unless we make an\nexception in the case of Christian veracity, which is as much like\nChristian logic as one cherry is like another.\n\nIt is a long time since Christians began arguing--it would be an outrage\non the dictionary to call it reasoning. They have been at it for nearly\ntwo thousand years. Their founder, Jesus Christ, seldom argued. He\nuttered himself dogmatically at most times; occasionally he spoke in\nparables; and whenever he was cornered he escaped on a palpable evasion.\nHis great disciple, Paul, however, was particularly fond of arguing. His\nwritings abound in \"for\" and \"whereas.\" The argument he most affected\nwas the circular one. He could run round a horseshoe, skip over from\npoint to point, and run round again as nimbly as any man on record. In\na famous chapter in Corinthians, for instance, he first proves the\nresurrection of the dead by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and then\nproves the resurrection of Jesus Christ by the resurrection of the dead.\nIt is in the same chapter that he enunciates the botanical truth (a\ntruth of Bible botany, observe) that a seed does not bear anything\nunless it dies. Altogether the great Apostle is a first-rate type of\nthe Christian logician, and there are some who declare him to be a\nfirst-rate type of the Christian truth-teller.\n\nSpeeding down the stream of time to the present age, we see that\nChristian logic (yes, and Christian veracity) has undergone little if\nany alteration. It is as infantile and as impudent as ever. Arguments\nthat would look fallacious in the nursery are used in the pulpit,\ngeneration after generation, with an air of solemn profundity, as though\nthey were as wise as the oracles of omniscience. To select from such\na plethora is almost impossible; the difficulty is where to begin. But\nhappily we are under no necessity of selection. A case is before us, and\nwe take it as it comes. It is a \"converted infidel\" case, in the report\nof a recent sermon--the last of a series on \"Is Christianity Played\nOut?\"--by the Rev. Dr. Hiles Hitchens; the gentleman referred to in one\nof our last week's paragraphs as wishing for an old three-legged stool\nor something made by Jesus Christ. Dr. Hitchens, alas! cannot find the\nstool, and has to put up with the creed instead; though, perhaps, he\ngets as much out of the creed as he would make by selling the stool to\nthe British Museum.\n\nDr. Hitchens preached from the text, \"The earth shall be full of the\nknowledge of the Lord\"--a statement which, after the lapse of so many\ncenturies, has still to be couched in the future tense. The delay has\nbeen excessive, but Dr. Hitchens is hopeful. He believes in the ultimate\nand speedy fulfilment of the prophecy. One of his grounds for so\nbelieving is this (we quote from the _Christian Commonwealth_), that\n\"Out of 20 leading lecturers, authors, editors, and debaters on the side\nof Infidelity 17 have been brought to Christ within the last 30 years,\nhave left their infidel associations, openly professed the religion of\nJesus, and engaged in Christian work.\" The last he named, we are told,\nwas \"the case of a National Secular lecturer, of whom the sceptics were\ngreatly proud, who has recently been received by, and now lectures for,\nthe Christian Evidence Society.\"\n\nWe leave the consideration of these \"facts\" for a moment, and deal\nin the first place with Dr. Hitchens's peculiar logic. It is truly\nChristian. The species is unmistakable. Seventeen Freethinkers have been\nconverted to Christianity! Wonderful! But how many Christians have been\nconverted to Freethought? Ay, there's the rub. For every specimen Dr.\nHitchens produces we will produce a thousand. Not only were the rank and\nfile of the Freethought party very largely brought up as Christians, but\nits leaders are of the same category. Charles Bradlaugh was brought up\nas a Christian, so was Colonel Ingersoll. Can Dr. Hitchens produce two\nnames among his \"converts\" of the same weight, or a half, a quarter, or\na tithe of it? Every leader of Freethought in England, we believe, is a\nconvert from Christianity. As to the \"leading\" men Dr. Hitchens refers\nto, we presume they are the persons initialed in the late Mr. Whitmore's\ntract, and those among them who were leaders were not converted, and\nthose who were converted were not leaders. The real leaders of the\nFreethought party, those who were long in its service, and were\nentrusted with power and responsibility, were never converted. And the\ncases on Mr. Whitmore's list are old. They have an ancient and fish-like\nsmell. Dr. Hitchens will perhaps be good enough to tell us the name\nof any man of real distinction in the Freethought party who has been\n\"converted\" during the last twenty years. We defy him to do so. If he\ngoes back far enough he will find a few men who were not trusted in our\nparty, and a few weaklings who could not fight an uphill battle, who\nwent over to the enemy. Real leaders of our party fought, suffered,\nand starved, but they never deserted the flag. Christianity could not\nconvert a Bradlaugh or a Holyoake; it could only bribe or allure a\nSexton or a Gordon, or others of the \"illustrious obscure\" in Mr.\nWhitmore's fraudulent catalogue. In short, the \"conversions\" to\nChristianity so trumpeted are mostly dubious, generally insignificant,\nand all ancient. If the prophecy which Dr. Hitchens preached from is to\nbe accomplished, it will have to quicken its rate of fulfilment during\nthe past twenty years. We convert tremendously more Christians than you\ndo Freethinkers; the balance is terribly to your disadvantage; you can\nonly make out a promising account by setting down your infinitesimal\ngains and making no entry of your tremendous losses.\n\nThe only recent case that Dr. Hitchens refers to is that of \"a National\nSecular lecturer, of whom the sceptics were greatly proud.\" Dr. Hitchens\nevidently takes this gentleman at his own estimate. That _he_ thinks\nthe sceptics were greatly proud of him is intelligible; it is quite in\nkeeping with his shallow, vulgar, And egotistical nature. But the truth\nis \"the sceptics,\" in any general sense, were _not_ proud of him. He\nwas a very young man, with a great deal to learn, who had a very brief\ncareer as a Secularist in East London. In a thoughtless moment a\nlocal Secular Society gave him office, and that fact is his entire\nstock-in-trade as a \"converted Freethinker.\" He was never one of the\nNational Secular Society's appointed lecturers; he was neither \"author,\neditor, or debater\"; and he was utterly unknown to the party in general.\nDr. Hitchens has, in fact, discovered a mare's nest. We are in a\nposition to speak with some authority, and we defy him to name any\nFreethinker \"of whom the sceptics were greatly proud\" who has of late\nyears been converted to Christianity. It is easy enough to impose on an\nignorant congregation, and Dr. Hitchens is probably aware of the lengths\nto which a reckless pulpiteer may carry his mendacity. But candid\ninvestigators will conclude that \"converted infidels\" cannot be very\nplentiful, when the majority of them are so ancient; nor very important,\nwhen an obscure youth has to be advertised as \"a leader\" of whom the\nsceptics (nine out of ten of them never having heard of him) were\n\"greatly proud.\"\n\nWe should imagine that Dr. Hitchens is rather new to this line of\nadvocacy. In the course of time he will learn--if indeed he has\nnot already learnt, and is concealing the fact--that the \"converted\ninfidels\" will not stand a minute's scrutiny. The only safe method is to\ndrop questionable cases and resort to sheer invention. Even that\nmethod, however, is not devoid of peril, as one of its practitioners\nhas recently discovered. The Rev. Hugh Price Hughes must by this time\nbe extremely sorry he circulated that false and foolish story of the\nconverted Atheist shoemaker. The exposure of it follows him wherever\nhe goes, and illustrates the truth of at least one Bible text--\"Be sure\nyour sin will find you out.\"\n\n\n\n\nMRS. BOOTH'S GHOST.\n\nThe Booth family have all keen eyes for business. If they shut their\neyes you can see it by their noses. It is not surprising, therefore,\nto find Mrs. Booth-Tucker capping Mr. Stead's ghost stories with a fine\nromance about her dead mother. While the \"Mother of the Salvation Army\"\nwas dying, the Booth family made all the capital they could out of her\nsufferings; and when she expired, her corpse was shunted about in the\nfinancial interest of their show. Perhaps they would be exhibiting her\nstill if there were no law as to the disposition of corpses. But as that\navenue to profit is closed, the only alternative is to make use of Mrs.\nBooth's ghost, and this has just been done by one of her daughters.\n\nMrs. Booth-Tucker contributes her ghost story to the Easter number of\n_All the World_. No doubt Easter was thought a seasonable time for its\npublication. Christians are just then dreaming about the great Jerusalem\nghost, and another \"creeper\" comes in appropriately.\n\nMr. Stead catches up Mrs. Booth-Tucker's ghost story and prints it\nin the _Review of Reviews_. He admits the want of evidence \"as to its\nobjectivity,\" which is a euphemism for \"no evidence at all,\" and then\nobserves most sapiently that if it was only a dream, \"the coincidence\nof its occurrence at the crisis in her illness is remarkable\"--which is\nprecisely what it is not.\n\nMrs. Booth-Tucker was very ill on board a steamer when she saw her\nmother, fresh from \"the beautiful land above.\" \"Those with me,\" she\nsays, \"thought I was dying, and I thought so too.\" When a person is in\nthat state, after a wasting illness, the brain is necessarily weak. But\nthis was not all. \"I had not slept,\" the lady says, \"for some days, at\nany rate not for many minutes together.\" Her brain, therefore, was\nnot only weak, but overwrought; and in ingenuously stating this at the\noutset the lady gives herself away. Given a wasted body, weakness \"unto\ndeath,\" a brain ill supplied with blood and ravaged with sleeplessness;\ndoes it, we ask, require a \"rank materialist\" to explain the presence of\n\"visions\" without the aid of supernaturalism?\n\n\"Suddenly,\" Mrs. Booth-Tucker says, \"I saw her coming to me.\" But how\n\"coming\"? The lady tells us she was lying in \"a small sea cabin.\" This\ndoes not leave much room for the \"coming\" of the ghost. We should also\nlike to know why a lady thought to be dying was _left alone_. It is\ncertainly a very unusual circumstance.\n\nMrs. Booth's ghost, after as much \"coming\" as could be accomplished in\n\"a small cabin,\" at last \"sat beside\" her sick daughter \"on the narrow\nbunk.\" No doubt the seat was rather incommodious, but why should a\nghost sit at all? It really seems to have been a mixed sort of ghost.\nApparently it came through the ship's side, or the deck, or the\ncabin-door, or the key-hole; yet it was solid enough to touch Mrs.\nBooth-Tucker's hand and kiss her? Nay, it was solid enough to carry on\na long conversation, which does not seem possible without lungs and\nlarynx.\n\nMrs. Booth's ghost said a great deal. \"_Wonderful words_ they were,\"\nsays Mrs. Booth-Tucker. This whets our curiosity. We are always\nlistening for \"wonderful words.\" But, alas, we are doomed to\ndisappointment. The lady knows her mother's words were \"wonderful,\" but\nshe cannot reproduce them. Here memory is defective. \"I can remember\nso few of the actual words,\" she says. Nevertheless, she gives us a few\nsamples, and they do not seem _very_ \"wonderful.\" Here are two of the\nsaid samples: \"Live, live, live, remembering that night comes always\n_quickly_, and all is nothingness that dies with death!\" \"Fight the\nfight, darling; the sympathy of Christ is always with you, and every\neffort you make is heaping up treasure for you in Heaven.\"\n\nWe fancy we have heard those \"wonderful words\" before. For all their\nwonderfulness, ghosts are seldom original. Mrs. Booth-Tucker reminds\nus of the gushing lady novelist, who describes her hero as divinely\nhandsome and miraculously clever, but when she opens his mouth, makes\nhim talk like a jackass.\n\n\"General\" Booth's daughter does not see that she found words for her\nmother's ghost. She is not so sharp as Dr. Johnson, who carried on a\ndiscussion with an adversary in a dream, and got the worst of it. For a\ntime he felt humiliated, but he recovered his pride on reflecting that\nhe had provided the other fellow with arguments.\n\nWhen Mrs. Booth-Tucker tells that \"the radiance of her face spoke to\nme,\" we can easily understand the subjective nature of her \"vision,\" and\nas readily dispense with a budget of those \"wonderful words.\"\n\nNor are we singular in incredulity. Mr. Stead cannot put his tongue\nin his cheek at a member of the Booth family, but the _Christian\nCommonwealth_ says \"the story is both improbable and absurd,\" and adds,\n\"it is just such fanaticism as this that brings religion into contempt\nwith many educated people.\" Our pious contemporary, like any wretched\nmaterialist, declares that many persons have seen ghosts \"when under the\ninfluence of fever or in a low state of health.\"\n\nAll this is sensible enough, and in a Christian journal very edifying.\nBut if our pious contemporary only applied this criticism backwards,\nwhat havoc it would make with the records of early Christianity! Mrs.\nBooth-Tucker is not in all points like Mary Magdalene, but she resembles\nher in fervor of disposition. Out of Mary Magdalene we are told that\nJesus cast \"seven devils,\" which implies, rationalistically, that\nshe was strongly hysterical. She was more likely to be a victim of\n\"fanaticism\" than Mrs. Booth-Tucker. Yet the ghost story of Mrs. Booth's\ndaughter is discredited, and even stigmatised as discreditable, while\nthe brain-sick fancies of Mary Magdalene are treated as accurate\nhistory. She was at the bottom of the Jerusalem ghost story, and her\nevidence is regarded as unimpeachable. So much do circumstances alter\ncases!\n\nOur pious contemporary regards all modern ghosts as \"fever dreams.\" So\ndo we, and we regard all ancient ghosts in the same light The\ndifference between ancient and modern superstition is only a question of\nenvironment. Superstition itself is always the same; it no more changes\nthan the leopard's spots or the Ethiopian's skin. But the environment\nchanges. From the days when there was no scientific knowledge or\nrigorous criticism we have advanced to an age when the electric\nsearch-light of science sweeps every corner and criticism is\nremorseless. Hence the modern ghosts are served up in Christmas\n\"shockers,\" while the ancient ghosts are worshipped as gods. But this\nwill not last for ever. The rule of \"what is, has been,\" will eventually\nbe applied to the whole of human history, and the greatest ghost of the\ncreeds will \"melt into the infinite azure of the past.\"\n\n\n\n\nTALMAGE ON THE BIBLE.\n\nTalmage is the Spurgeon of America. He has all the English preacher's\nvogue as well as his orthodoxy. But he resembles Spurgeon with a\ndifference. He is distinctly American. No one equals the Yankee at \"tall\ntalk,\" and what Yankee equals Talmage in this species of composition?\nThe oracle of the Brooklyn Tabernacle licks creation in that line. Here\nis a specimen of his spread-eagle eloquence, taken from the sermon we\nare about to criticise:--\"The black and deep-toned bell of doom hangs\nover their heads, and I take the hammer of that bell, and I strike it\nthree times with all my might, and it sounds Woe! Woe! Woe!\" Perhaps it\ndoes, but Talmage is wrong in his spelling. What the bell of doom, so\nimpudently struck by this mannikin, really sounds is doubtless \"Woh!\nWoh! Woh!\" It wants the presumptuous spouter to leave off playing the\npart of God Almighty.\n\nOver in America, as well as here in England, the Bible is meeting\nwith misfortune. Christian ministers are showing up its blunders and\ninconsistencies. Its foes are now of its own household. Talmage is\nnot frightened, however; he keeps a stiff upper-lip; and it must be\nadmitted, he has a good deal of upper-lip to keep stiff. Since he\nvisited the Holy Land his faith is strong enough to swallow whales. Now\nhe knows that what the Bible says is true.. He has seen the place where\nit happened.\n\nBut faith is a tender plant. Talmage says it is easily destroyed. \"I can\ngive you a recipe for its obliteration,\" he cries; and it is this--\"Read\ninfidel books; have long and frequent conversations with sceptics;\nattend the lectures of those antagonistic to religion.\" Yes, faith _is_\na tender plant. The believer is a hot-house production. He dies in the\nopen-air. The Bible can be read by Freethinkers, and it confirms them\nin their scepticism; but if a Christian reads infidel books he is lost.\nHearing the other side is fatal to his faith. It is Talmage who states\nso, and, as old Omar Khayyam says, he knows, he knows.\n\nSomewhat paradoxically--but who expects logic from the pulpit?--the\ngreat Talmage declares, \"I do not believe there is an infidel now alive\nwho has read the Bible through.\" He offers a hundred dollars reward to\nany infidel \"who has read the Bible through twice\"--which discounts\nhis certainty that no infidel had read it through _once_. A good many\ninfidels might apply for that hundred dollars, but Talmage will never\nhand it over. An infidel's word is not good enough--not for Talmage. \"I\nmust have the testimony,\" he exclaims, \"of someone who has seen him read\nit all through twice.\" A very safe condition! for who has ever _seen_\nany man read the Bible through? And if the witness happened to be an\ninfidel--as is likely--Talmage would want the testimony of someone else\nwho had seen him see the other man reading it; Talmage is not very wise,\nbut he is not exactly a fool, and he and _his_ money are _not_ soon\nparted.\n\nThere is an \"infidel\" in America who _has_ read the Bible through. His\nname is Robert G. Ingersoll. Talmage should discuss the Bible with him.\nBut he won't. He knows what his fate would be in such an encounter. \"And\nthey gathered up of the fragments that remained twelve baskets full.\"\n\nThere is also an \"infidel\" in England who has read the Bible through.\n_More_ than one, of course, but we know this one so intimately. He was\nshut up in Holloway Gaol for knowing too much about the Bible. During\nthe first eight weeks of his sojourn there the \"blessed book\" was his\nonly companion. It was the Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the\nBible. That prisoner read it through from the first mistake in Genesis\nto the last curse in Revelation; read it through as Talmage _never_ did,\nfor there were no distractions, no letters to answer, no morning and\nevening newspapers, no visitors dropping in. It was a continuous,\nundisturbed reading, and the man who did it would be happy to let the\npublic decide whether he does not know the Bible as well as Talmage.\n\nTalmage has a very poor opinion of infidels. He thinks that \"bad\nhabits\" have much to do with scepticism. His narrow little mind cannot\nunderstand how anyone can differ from him without being wicked. Still,\nfor decency sake, he makes exceptions. \"Mind you,\" he cries, \"I do not\nsay that all infidels are immoral.\" How kind! How generous! No doubt the\ninfidels will shed tears of gratitude. They are not _all_ immoral. Some\nof them may be nearly as good as Talmage. Certainly some of them are\nnot so avaricious. Infidels speakers don't insist on having fifty\npounds paid in the ante-room before they mount the platform to deliver a\nlecture.\n\nIt appears that Talmage once knew a \"pronounced infidel.\" He was the\nfather of one of the Presidents of the United States. Talmage accepted\nan invitation to spend a night in his house. \"Just before retiring at\nnight, he said, in a jocose way: 'I suppose you are accustomed to read\nthe Bible before going to bed, and here is my Bible from which to read.\nHe then told me what portions he would like to have me read, and he only\nasked for those portions on which he could easily be facetious.\"\n\nTalmage gives himself away in this observation. He contends that God\nwrote the Bible. Why, then, did God write it so that you could _easily_\nbe facetious about it? It is not so _easy_ to be facetious about Homer,\nor Plato, or Aristotle, or Dante, or Spinoza, or Shakespeare, or Bacon.\nThere is no humor in the Bible, no wit, and only a little sarcasm. We\ndo not laugh _with_ it, but _at_ it, which is the most fatal form of\nlaughter. It is awfully solemn, but dreadfully absurd. There are things\nin it to tickle an elephant. Surely it is strange that God should write\na book that lends itself so easily to ridicule.\n\nThe Spurgeon of Yankeeland goes on to speak about the \"internal\nevidence\" of the Bible. This he says is \"paramount,\" though he takes\ncare to skip off as quickly as possible to outside testimony. He cites\na number of persons trained up as Christians in favor of the\n\"supernatural\" character of the Bible. The first is Chief Justice Chase,\nof the Supreme Court of the United States--against whom we put a great\njurisprudist like Bentham, and a great judge like Sir James Stephen. The\nsecond is President Adams--against whom we put President Lincoln.\nThe third is Sir Isaac Newton--against whom we put Charles Darwin. The\nfourth is Sir Walter Scott--against whom we put Byron and Shelley. The\nfifth is Hugh Miller--against whom we put Sir Charles Lyell. The sixth\nis Edmund Burke--against whom we put Thomas Paine, or, if that will not\ndo, Lord Bolingbroke. The seventh is Mr. Gladstone--against whom we put\nJohn Morley. \"Enough! Enough!\" says Talmage. We say so too. Our names\nquite balance his names collectively. The game of \"authorities\" can be\nplayed on both sides. But is it worth playing at all? Is a great name\na substitute for argument? Is authority as good as evidence? Should\nthe jury decide according to the eminence of the pleader's friends, or\naccording to his facts and the force of his reasoning?\n\nTaking advantage of his congregation's ignorance, or exposing his own,\nTalmage declares that \"The discovered monuments of Egypt have chiselled\non them the story of the sufferings of the Israelites in Egyptian\nbondage, as we find it in the Bible.\" Now, to put it mildly, this is not\ntrue. We are also told that \"the sulphurous graves of Sodom and Gomorrah\nhave been identified.\" To put it mildly again, _this_ is not true. We\nare told next that \"the remains of the Tower of Babel have been found.\"\nThis is not true. Assyrian documents are also said to \"echo and re-echo\nthe truth of Bible history,\" This is not true, according to Professor\nSayce, who knows more about Assyrian history than Talmage knows about\nall things whatsoever. The witness of Assyria repeatedly contradicts the\nBible story, not merely in small matters, but in important features. The\nfact is, Talmage does not know what he is talking about; or, he _does_\nknow what he is talking about, in which case he is playing a very dirty\ntrick on his hearers' credulity.\n\nWith respect to the Pentateuch, it does not trouble Talmage whether\nit was written by \"Moses or Hilkiah or Ezra or Samuel or Jeremiah, or\nanother group of ancients.\" He declares that \"none of them wrote it,\"\nfor \"God wrote the Pentateuch\"--that is to say, they \"put down only what\nGod dictated; he signed it afterward.\" But where is the signature? And\nwhat a paltry way is this of evading the question at issue! It is all\nvery well to say that the writers of the Pentateuch were \"Jehovah's\nstenographers or typewriters.\" What we want to know first of all is, who\nthey were, and when they lived.\n\nIt is useless to follow Talmage any farther. Suffice it to say that he\nwinds up by warning young Christians against a \"Voltaire cyclone\" on\nthe one side, and a \"Tom Paine cyclone\" on the other side. There is\nsomething worse than either--a Talmage puddle. The young man who sports\nin that is only fit for--well, Exeter Hall, or Colney Hatch.\n\n\n\n\nMRS. BESANT ON DEATH AND AFTER.\n\nWhen we first criticised Mrs. Besant's newly-found Theosophy, and\nthereby incurred her severe displeasure, we predicted that her\nenthusiastic nature would carry her far on the road, which she thought\nof true philosophy, but which we thought of gross superstition. Our\nprediction has been realised; and, unless for some accident, or some\nsudden turn in Mrs. Besant's mind or life, it will be realised still\nfurther. In this, as in other matters (as the French say) it is the\nfirst step which costs, because it involves all the following steps.\nMrs. Besant placed her feet upon the high road of credulity when she\nsuccumbed to the Theosophical high priestess, whose life is a highly\ninteresting and instructive chapter in the history of imposture. Madame\nBlavatsky had seen much of the world, and was up to most things. She\nhad a surprising power of bamboozling people of some intelligence and\nculture. The broad-set eyes, and the great tiger-bar between and over\nthem, indicated the species to which she belonged. Mrs. Besant, with\nher innocences and enthusiasms, was a baby in the hands of this\nfemale Cagliostro. She actually gave the Blavatsky credit for what she\nobviously did not possess. Her manners, for instance, were not such as\nmight be expected from one who had tasted of spiritual wisdom at its\nsecret sources; while her pretentious ignorance was enough to alarm\nany student not under the glamor of her audacity. She made the most\ngrotesque mistakes in science, while pompously setting right in their\nown province such colossal authorities as Darwin and Haeckel. She had\ncertainly read very widely (or got others to read very widely for her)\nin \"occult\" literature; but wherever one's own knowledge enabled one to\ntest, she was a poor smatterer; and the same judgment is delivered upon\nher by specialists in most of the fields she invaded. It was not her\nlearning or her intellectual power that captivated Mrs. Besant; it\nwas her strong personality, her masculine dominance, her crafty\nself-possession. From the first minute of her enchantment, Mrs. Besant\nlost all sense of logic in relation to Theosophy. For instance, it\nwas asserted, and the assertion was supported by positive,\ndetailed-evidence, that the Blavatsky had practised the grossest\nimposture in India. And how did Mrs. Besant dispose of these charges?\nShe says she read them, and immediately joined the Theosophical\nSociety--as though that were any _answer_. It is like saying, \"I don't\nrebut the evidence against the prisoner in the dock, but I shall shake\nhands with him.\" What possible effect could that have on the sensible\npart of the jury? But this sort of logic has been displayed by Mrs.\nBesant ever since; indeed, she seems to have a dim perception of her\nweakness, for she dares not discuss Theosophy, or any part of it, with\nan out-and-out Freethinker--one who would subject it to the critical\ntests with which she herself was familiar when she stood upon the\nSecular platform.\n\nThere is one aspect of Mrs. Besant's advocacy of Theosophy which we\ncensured at first, and which we now think is something short of honest.\nMrs. Besant used to present Secularism in its naked truth, to be\nembraced or rejected; but she follows a different course in regard to\nTheosophy; she puts its plausible features forward and conceals the\nrest, so that people who have heard her are positively astonished when\nthey are told of some of her printed teachings. This seems especially\nthe case when she addresses meetings, somewhat too chivalrously\norganised by Freethinkers. Now this is not fair, it is not really\nhonest; though it may be in accord with the ethics of those who\ndivide truth into \"exoteric\" and \"esoteric.\" To our mind, it is rather\nsuggestive of the spider and the fly. \"Will you walk into my parlor?\"\n\"Oh yes,\" says the giddy fly, \"it looks so nice, positively inviting?\"\nBut what of the other rooms in your house; your garret near the sky,\nwhere you do star-gazing, and your basement, where crawl the foul things\nof savage superstition?\n\nMany of our readers have heard Mrs. Besant in the sweet persuasive vein,\nand felt pleased if rather muddled. For their sakes, and not for our\nown satisfaction, we shall criticise her little volume on _Death--and\nAfter?_ just issued as No. III. of a series of Theosophical Manuals.\nWhen we have done they will know more about Theosophy than if they had\nlistened to Mrs. Besant (especially from Freethought platforms) for ten\nthousand years.\n\nFirst, let us notice Mrs. Besant's attitude. Her devotion to the\nBlavatsky is complete; she mentions the great woman with profound\nveneration, swears to all she taught, and, in fact, just stews down the\nBlavatsky's voluminous nonsense. Mrs. Besant is also a patient disciple\nof the Masters--to wit, the Mahatmas. These Masters of Wisdom never\nappear for inspection. They lurk in the secret fastnesses of Tibet,\nwhich is a very unexplored part of the world, large enough to hide a\ngood many things, even things that do not exist. They know a lot, but\nwhat dribbles out of them is very commonplace when it is not pompously\nsilly. They inhabit higher planes of life than our greatest saints and\nsages, but somehow they have done nothing for Tibet, which is one of the\npoorest, dirtiest, and most degraded countries on earth. Still, they are\ngoing to give a tremendous lift to the civilisation of Europe; and if we\nlive long enough we shall see what we _do_ see. Mahatmas are really the\ndistinctive feature of Theosophy; it is absolutely nothing without them;\nand, in our opinion, they are a most farcical swindle Madame Blavatsky\ncreated _these_ out of her own fertile imagination, she put them where\nthey could not be found, and she said, \"If you want to know anything\nabout them come to me; I am the chosen vehicle of their sublime\nrevelations.\" And if you laughed at her Mahatmas, she was capable\nof indulging in expletives that would strike envy into the soul of a\ntrooper. How curious it is, if these Mahatmas are real personages,\nthat they do not communicate with _our_ Masters of Wisdom. Why do they\nneglect our Spencers and Huxleys? Why do they choose to speak through\na woman like Madame Blavatsky, or a popular lecturess like Mrs. Besant?\nWhy are they so fond of the ladies? Cannot they have some dealings\nwith _a man_, a man of great eminence as a philosopher, of high and\nundisputed character, and of vast influence with the educated and\nthoughtful classes? Why, in short, do the Mahatmas confine their\nattention to smaller persons _with fish to fry?_\n\nRelying upon these Mahatmas, and upon Madame Blavatsky, her great guide,\nphilosopher, and friend, Mrs. Besant has an extremely easy task. She\nmakes no attempt to prove, she simply asserts, and it seems to be a\nkind of blasphemy to ask for evidence. She dishes everything up in Hindu\nterminology, on the ground that \"the English language has as yet no\nequivalents.\" But will it ever have them? Never, we suspect, by\nthe assistance of Theosophists. The oriental lingo is part of the\nfascination to those who like to look profound on a small stock of\nlearning. Besides, it imposes on the open-mouthed; and, if the Hindu\nterminology were translated into vernacular English, they would probably\nexclaim, \"Good God! there's nothing in it.\" It is all very well for Mrs.\nBesant to pour out second-hand praise of \"technical terms.\" We all know\ntheir value. But how is it we have not got them already? Because--and\nthis is the only answer--because we are ignorant of the _things_.\nWestern experience does not coincide with oriental dreams.\n\nMrs. Besant opens her little volume with the famous story of the\nconversion to Christianity of Edwin, but she tells it very loosely, and\nin fact wrongly; which is a proof that the infallibility of the Mahatmas\nhas not fallen upon their disciple. She states that while Paulinus,\nthe Christian missionary, was speaking to-Edwin of life, death, and\nimmortality, a bird flew in through a window, circled the hall, and flew\nout again into the darkness; whereupon the Christian priest \"bade the\nking see in the flight of the bird within the-hall the transitory life\nof man, and claimed for his faith that it showed the soul, in passing\nfrom the' hall of life, winging its way, not in the darkness of night,\nbut in the sunlit radiance of a more glorious world.\" Now the bird did\nnot fly into the hall as Paulinus was speaking, nor did he preach this\nsermon upon its movements. It was one of Edwin's suite who introduced\nthe bird's flight as a metaphor, reminding the king that sometimes at\nsupper, in the winter, a sparrow would fly in out of the storm, entering\nat one door and passing out at another, staying but a minute, and after\nthat minute returning to winter as from winter it came. \"Such is the\nlife of man,\" said the Saxon speaker, \"and of what follows it, or what\nhas preceded it, we are altogether ignorant; wherefore, if this new\ndoctrine should bring anything more certain, it well deserves to be\nfollowed.\" This is how the incident is related by Bede, though it is\nprobably apocryphal; nevertheless it ought not to be hashed up by fresh\ncooks; and if the matter is in itself of trifling importance, it is as\nwell to be accurate, especially when you pretend a close acquaintance\nwith the Masters of Wisdom.\n\nMany hundred years have elapsed since Paulinus talked with Edwin, and\nto-day, says Mrs. Besant, there are \"more people in Christendom\nwho question whether a man has a spirit to come anywhence or to go\nany-whither, than, perhaps, in the world's history could ever before\nhave been found at one time.\" We are also reminded that man has always\nbeen asking whence the soul comes, and whither it goes, and \"the answers\nhave varied with the faiths.\" _This_ is true, at any rate; but it does\nnot suggest to Mrs. Besant any lesson of modesty or hesitation. Despite\nthe discord of so many ages, she is most coolly dogmatic. It does\nnot, apparently, occur to her to ask _why_ the discord has perpetually\nprevailed. In matters of science, after investigation and discussion,\nthe world comes to an agreement; in matters of theology (or, if you\nlike, Theosophy) the world grows more and more at variance. _Why_ is\nthis? There must be an explanation. And to our mind the explanation is\nvery simple. In matters of science men deal with _facts_, while in those\nother matters they deal with _fancies_, and the more freedom you give\nthem the greater will be the variety of their preferences.\n\nMrs. Besant's new superstition of Theosophy is, in our judgment, more\nfoolish and less dignified than Christianity. We are therefore moved\nto say that she does injustice to Christianity in representing it as\nresponsible for all the black paraphernalia and lugubrious ceremonies\nof death. There was, indeed, nothing of all this among the primitive\nChristians. Such things belong to the world's common customs and\nsuperstitions. Black was not merely a sign of sorrow, or at least of\ndepression; it was also thought to be protective against ghosts; so that\nthese trappings and suits of woe belong to the very \"spookology\" which\nis an integral part of Theosophy. Of course I freely admit that the\nordinary gloom of death has been deepened by the Christian doctrine of\nhell, though Mrs. Besant seems to think otherwise. She inclines to\nthe belief that the Western fear of death is ethnological, being the\nantithesis of its vigorous life. But it may be objected that the old\nRomans were comparatively free from this terror. On the other hand, it\nmust be allowed that Mrs. Besant is right in her observation that \"the\nmore mystical dreamy East\" has little dread of the \"shadow cloaked from\nhead to foot,\" since it is ever ever seeking to escape from \"from the\nthraldom of the senses,\" and is apt to look upon \"the disembodied state\nas eminently desirable and as most conducive to unfettered thought.\"\nIn other words, that \"when the brains are out,\" as Macbeth says, man's\nintellect undergoes a wonderful improvement; an opinion, by the way,\nwhich is quite in harmony with Theosophical teaching.\n\nAfter giving the Theosophical view of the \"body,\" Mrs. Besant says that\nwhen once we _thus_ come to regard it, death loses all its terrors. But\nthis is not the sole achievement of Theosophy. What terror had death to\nCharles Bradlaugh? What terror had death to Mrs. Besant while she was\nan Atheist? There are thousands of sceptics who do not want Theosophy\nto redeem them from a terror which they have long cast behind them, with\nthe superstition by which it was bred and cherished.\n\nLet us pause to remark that Mrs. Besant quotes from _Paradise Lost_ its\nmagnificent description of Death. She appreciates at least the splendor\nof the diction, but she does not notice how poor in comparison are the\nwords she quotes from her \"Masters.\" How is it that Milton beats the\nMahatmas? What objects they look when the great English poet rises \"with\nhis singing robes about him\"! How thin their music when he strikes upon\nhis thrilling lyre, or blows his rousing trumpet, or rolls from his\nmighty organ the floods of entrancing harmony!\n\nBut to return to the main subject. It is absurd, as Mrs. Besant points\nout, to claim for Christianity that it \"brought life and immortality\nto light.\" The belief in a future life was an intense conviction--or,\nperhaps we should say, a perfect truism--among the people of ancient\nIndia and Egypt. Yet here again, with her taste for dogmatic rhetoric,\nMrs. Besant gratuitously exaggerates. \"The whole ancient world,\" she\nsays, \"basked in the full sunshine of belief in the immortality of man,\nlived in it daily, voiced it in their literature, and went with it in\ncalm serenity through the gate of Death.\" Now \"calm serenity\" is bad\ntautology, and the general assertion of this passage is equally open\nto censure. \"The whole ancient world,\" as the Americans would say, is a\nlarge order. Greece and Rome (to say nothing of the pre-Maccabean Jews)\nwere very important parts of \"the whole ancient world,\" and whoever\nasserts that _their_ citizens \"basked in the sunshine of belief in\nimmortality\" is simply making a confession of ignorance. Greek and Roman\npoets and philosophers in many cases doubted, or even denied, a life\nbeyond the grave. Even when the doctrine was entertained it does not\nappear to have been productive of much \"sunshine.\" Does not the poet\nmake the shade of the great Achilles say that he would rather be the\nveriest day-drudge on earth than command all the armies of the ghosts\nin the cold pale realm of the dead? We do not ignore, on the other hand,\nthe Islands of the Blest; we are only objecting to Mrs. Besant's loose\nand sweeping assertions, which prove very clearly that her new \"faith\"\nis not remarkable in the cultivation of accuracy.\n\nWith regard to man--the _entire_ human being, mortal and immortal--Mrs.\nBesant remarks that \"un-instructed Christians\" chop him into two, the\nbody-that perishes at death, and the \"something that survives death.\"\nShe omits to notice that a good many Christians chop him into three, to\nsay nothing of others, like the Christadelphians, who leave him one and\nindivisible. Mrs. Besant, for her part, as a true Theo-sophist, goes\nfarther than the sharpest Christian dissectors. She chops man into\n_seven_. When she was a Materialist she never suspected that her nature\nwas so composite, and we are still in the same benighted condition. One\nbegins to feel that the injunction, \"Man, know thyself,\" is a terrible\nburden. It is hard enough to get a fair knowledge of our organism,\nits physical constitution, its intellectual faculties, and its moral\ntendencies; but the task is absolutely appalling when, we have to get a\nsatisfactory knowledge of our Atma, our Buddhi, our Manas, our Kama, our\nPrana, our Linga Sharira, and our Sthula Sharira. Anyone who can master\nall that may as well go on unto seventy times seven.\n\nThe immortal soul consists of the upper three, which are a trinity in\neverlasting unity. The heavens may wax old as a garment, but they \"go\non for ever,\" and flourish in immortal youth. Death is the first step in\nthe process of their separation from the lower and perishable four. One\nafter another of these is shed, as the serpent sloughs its skin, or\nthe butterfly its chrysalis; or, to use a more familiar and pungent\nillustration, which we make a present of to Mrs. Besant, as you peel an\nonion, fold after fold, until you get to the tender core. Sthula Sharira\ngoes first, and the organism becomes a corpse, which is buried, or\ncremated, or eaten by cannibals. Linga Sharira, the Astral Double, had\nbeen attached to it by a \"delicate cord,\" which is our old friend\n\"the thread of life\"--a convenient metaphor turned into a positive\nproposition. This delicate cord is snapped, not immediately, \"but some\nhours\" (as many as thirty-six occasionally) after \"apparent death.\" It is\nnecessary, therefore, to be very quiet in the death-chamber, while the\nLinga Sharira is eloping. One shudders to think of what might happen, of\nthe indecent haste to which Number Six might be compelled, if a corpse\nwere cremated a few hours after death; the corpse, for instance, of a\nman who died from cholera or the plague.\n\nThis \"delicate cord\" which attaches Number Seven to Number Six is\nperceptible if your eyes are constructed that way; that is, if you are\na clairvoyant, one who is able to see beyond the real. Mrs. Besant\ndoes not say she has seen it herself; indeed, she is always relying on\nsomeone else. She refers us to Andrew Jackson Davis, the \"Poughkeepsie\nSeer\" (and a Spiritist, though she does not say so), who \"watched this\nescape of the ethereal body\" and states that \"the magnetic cord did\nnot break for some thirty-six hours.\" \"Others,\" says Mrs. Besant, \"have\ndescribed, in similar terms, how they saw a faint violet mist rise\nfrom the dying body, gradually condensing into a figure which was the\ncounterpart of the expiring person, and attached to that person by a\nglittering thread.\" Thus the attachment is \"delicate,\" \"magnetic,\" and\n\"glittering.\" In the course of time, we dare say, it will be decorated\nwith a much larger variety of adjectives. Meanwhile we may observe that\nif Mrs. Besant were to preach this sort of \"higher wisdom\" to savages\nshe would find an attentive and sympathetic audience. The violet mist,\nthe Astral Double, and the delicate, magnetic, glittering cord, are\nthings that they are to some extent already familiar with; and if\nshe could only get them to accept her terminology, and talk of Sthula\nSharira and Linga Sharira, they would be extremely promising candidates\nfor the Theosophical kingdom of heaven.\n\nMrs. Besant tells us that the Linga Sharira, or Astral Double, rots away\n(disintegrates) in time. It is \"the ethereal counterpart of the gross\nbody of man,\" and takes a longer time in dropping into nothingness.\n\n\"Sometimes this Double is seen by persons in the house, or in the\nneighborhood... the Double may be seen or heard; when seen it shows the\ndreamy hazy consciousness alluded to, is silent, vague in its aspect,\nand unresponsive.... This astral corpse remains near the physical one,\nand they disintegrate together; clairvoyants see these astral wraiths in\nchurchyards, sometimes showing likeness of the dead body, sometimes as\nviolet mists or lights. Such an astral corpse has been seen by a friend\nof my own.\"\n\nAt this point we think it well to part company with Mrs. Besant. Who\nwould have imagined, ten years ago, that the colleague of Charles\nBradlaugh would ever descend so far into superstition as to write and\ntalk seriously about churchyard spooks? What she may have to say about\nTheosophy after this can hardly be of interest to any thoroughly sane\nperson. We therefore close with an expression of profound regret that\nan earnest, eloquent lady who once did such service in the cause\nof progress, should thus fall a victim to some of the most childish\nsuperstitions of the human race.\n\n\n\n\nTHE POETS AND LIBERAL THEOLOGY. *\n\n     * _The Development of Theology as Illustrated in English\n     Poetry from 1780 to 1830_.   By Stopf ord A. Brooke.\n     London: Green, Essex-street.\n\nUnitarianism has had wealth and learning on its side for several\ngenerations, it has also enjoyed the services of some men of singular\nability, yet it has signally failed to make an impression upon the\ngeneral public. In all probability it ever _will_ fail. Those who like\ntheology at all, for the most part like it hot and strong. To purge\nit of its \"grosser\" features is to rob it of its chief attraction. The\nignorant and thoughtless multitude want plenty of supernaturalism.\nThose who think for themselves, on the other hand, are apt to grow\ndissatisfied with theology altogether, and to advance beyond the\nsomewhat arbitrary and fantastic limits of the Unitarian faith. For this\nreason Unitarianism was called by Erasmus Darwin, the grandfather of the\ngreat Charles Darwin, a feather bed to catch a falling Christian. Others\nregard it as a halfway house between Christianity and Atheism, or even\nas a bathing machine for those who would wade, and fear to plunge, in\nthe waters of Freethought.\n\nLet us not, however, deny the distinction of such advocates of the\nUnitarian faith as Dr. Martineau and Dr. Stopf ord Brooke. The latter\nwas once a clergyman of the Church of England, which he left because he\nno longer held her tenets, and in this he was more honest and courageous\nthan some others who eat the Church's bread and undermine her faith.\nMr. Brooke regards himself as a teacher of positive religion, but in our\njudgment his service to liberalism is really negative. His writings and\nsermons are a protest, however decorous, against the orthodox theology;\nand the protest may be all the more effective, with a certain order\nof minds, because it does not show them the ultimate consequences of\nfreethinking. When they see the preacher aglow with the ardor of his\n\"purified\" faith in God and Immortality, they are encouraged to advance\nas far as he has gone, and thus to leave behind them the worst portions\nof the creed of their childhood.\n\nMr. Brooke is well known in the field of literature, and is held to\nshine as a critic of poetry. Hence it was that the British and Foreign\nUnitarian Association appointed him to deliver the first lecture of\na course \"dealing with some aspect of the history and development of\nChristianity as viewed from a liberal and progressive standpoint.\" The\nspecial subject selected was the development of theology as illustrated\nin English poetry, and the lecture is now published in a neat little\nvolume for the general reader.\n\nWe notice the frequent recurrence of the phrase \"liberal theology.\"\nNaturally we like everybody to be liberal, but we cannot see the\nappropriateness of the epithet in this instance. It would sound strange\nto talk of \"liberal geology\" or \"liberal chemistry.\" Why then should\nwe talk of \"liberal theology\"? If theology is anything but an effort\nof imagination--as _we_ conceive it--it must be a system of ascertained\ntruth. Its propositions are therefore true or false, but they cannot\nbe good or bad, liberal or illiberal. Introduce these epithets, and\nyou make it a matter of taste and preference, or of conformity or\nnon-conformity to the spirit of advancing civilisation. This is indeed\nwhat Mr. Brooke appears to mean. He seems to regard theology as\nliberal or otherwise as it adapts itself to the growth of knowledge\nand morality. He goes to the length of admitting that secular progress\nprecedes religious progress. \"The Church,\" he says, \"has always followed\nsociety.\" The change in theology, which has made it \"liberal,\" or\nproduced that variety of it, could not have appeared \"in early\nChristian times, nor in the middle ages; not as long, that is, as the\nimperialistic or feudal theory of humanity and its rulers existed.\"\nStill more decisively, if possible, he repeats this statement:--\"There\nwas no chance then of theology changing until the existing views of\nhuman society changed. If theology was to be enlarged, they must first\nbe enlarged.\" Now this is a truth which we have always insisted on,\nand the reason of it is destructive to \"liberal\" and all other kinds of\ntheology. We are told that God made man, but the fact is that man made\nGod, and what he made he is able to keep in repair. The growing idea of\nGod's \"love\" is not forced upon theologians by a study of nature, nor by\na study of scripture. It is forced upon them by the advancing spirit\nof humanity. God was once a being who loved and hated, and all the\n\"liberal\" theologians have done is to minimise his hatred and maximise\nhis love. God has not made any fresh disclosures of himself, as Mr.\nBrooke teaches; the theologians have simply brought him up to date, and\nthey have done so under the compulsion of secular progress.\n\nMr. Brooke's conception of the Fatherhood of God is creditable to his\nfeelings. The deity he worships is one who will \"effectually call\nto himself and effectually keep, at last, all his children to whose\nfree-will only one thing is impossible--final division from the\nsovereignty of his love.\" But how far is this creditable to Mr. Brooke's\nintelligence? It is certainly inconsistent with the teaching of Christ,\nand Mr. Brooke calls himself a Christian. It is no less inconsistent\nwith all we know of Nature, who is supremely indifferent to the fate\nof individuals. To talk so consumedly of God's love in this age of\nDarwinism, with its law of natural selection based on a universal\nstruggle for existence, is to fly in the face of common sense. But here,\nalas, as in so many other cases, the voice of reason is drowned in the\nchorus of sentimentalism.\n\nWith respect to democracy, which is a kind of John the Baptist to Mr.\nBrooke's form of Christianity, there can be little doubt, we think, that\nit has been chiefly indebted to science, which has in three centuries,\nsince the days of Copernicus and Galileo, done more to advance the\nbrotherhood of man than has been done by religion from the \"first\nsyllable of recorded time.\" Mr. Brooke does not concern himself\nwith science, however; but he nearly agrees with us in the matter of\nchronology. A vast alteration in thought, due to whatever causes, had\nbeen going on for centuries. It was a change \"from exclusiveness to\nuniversality,\" and it \"took a literary and philosophical form in the\neighteenth century writers in France, and finally emerged a giant in the\nFrench Revolution.\" In that mighty upheaval \"the whole of the ideas of\nthe old society perished for ever and ever,\" and what seems to be left\nof them is \"but their ghosts, a host of pale-eyed, weary phantoms.\"\n\nThis is true and well expressed, but it should be added that most of\nthe eighteenth century writers in France, particularly those who may be\ncalled philosophical, were vehemently opposed to Christianity, as were\nmost of the eminent actors in the Revolution. Several of them were\ndownright Atheists, who would have regarded the \"liberal theology\" of\nMr. Brooke as a sign of mental feebleness.\n\nOut of the Revolution sprang the vivid conception of the Brotherhood\nof Man, and it was this, Mr. Brooke says, that made possible \"the\nconception of God's universal Fatherhood.\" In other words, a change in\nhuman ideas rendered necessary a change in theology. Still, we have Mr.\nBrooke's word for it, the Churches and sects were the last to move. \"In\nEngland,\" he declares, \"the resistance offered to these ideas by the\nreligious bodies has been always steady and often rancorous.\" It was\nanother class of men who seized upon them. These were the Poets, the\n\"most emotional, the most imaginative, the most prophetic, and the most\nclear-sighted of men.\" Sometimes they kept the name of Christians,\nbut more often they were called \"heretics or infidels, blasphemers or\natheists.\" Occasionally they _were_ Atheists, as in the case of Shelley,\nthough it could hardly be expected that Mr. Brooke would emphasise the\nfact.\n\nAfter some pithy criticism on William Blake, who was a forceful\nprotestor against the old theology, Mr. Brooke passes on to Burns and\nCowper. Of the exquisite satire of _Holy Willie's Prayer_, despite\nits \"irreverence and immorality,\" which are after all but matters\nof opinion, Mr. Brooke says that it \"weakened the worst doctrines of\nCalvinism far more than ten thousand liberal sermons have done.\" Cowper\nweakened Calvinism too, though he did so unintentionally. The pathos\nand horror of some of his poems, written under the heavy shadow of this\nawful creed, did a great deal to discredit it amongst thoughtful and\nsensitive readers. The poet was asked how he felt when dying. His answer\nwas, \"I feel unutterable despair.\" These terrible words prompt Mr.\nBrooke to write as follows:--\n\n\"They are words which all the good deeds of the professors of Calvinism\nwill never get over. 'He was mad,' they say; but what drove him mad?\nDid Jesus teach in order that men might become insane? for Cowper is\none among millions whom this doctrine of God has ruined morally,\nintellectually, or physically. But they have perished, unknown, unheard.\nThis man was a poet, and his words have told. His personal acceptance\nof the horror revealed, as the mockery of Burns did not, the idolatrous\nfoulness of this doctrine concerning God.\"\n\nColeridge's one specific contribution as a poet to a wider theology,\nin the opinion of Mr. Brooke, was the closing verse of the _Ancient\nMariner_--which, by the way, is not the closing verse, but the\nantepenultimate.\n\n     He prayeth best who loveth best\n     All things both great and small;\n     For the dear God who loveth us\n     He made and loveth all.\n\nMr. Brooke holds that Wordsworth did a far ampler work by his doctrine\nof immanence, which is perilously near Pantheism. Understood, however,\nin the spirit of \"liberal theology,\" it will not only finally govern,\nbut also \"bring about at last the complete reconcilement of science and\nreligion.\" But we must remind Mr. Brooke that this is sheer prophecy.\nIt is simple enough to utter the counter prophecy that Wordsworth's\ndoctrine will do nothing of the kind.\n\nIt is in relation to Byron and Shelley that Mr. Brooke really comes to\nthe point of his essay. Wordsworth and Coleridge turned their backs\nupon the Revolution. They were disenchanted. They failed to see that the\nthroes of birth were not the end of the progressive process. One sought\nrefuge in Toryism, modified by benevolence; the other in metaphysical\nmoonshine and esoteric theology. Byron, on the other hand, while not\nin the least constructive, or enamored of the more advanced ideas in\nreligion, politics, and sociology, was filled with a bitter hatred\nand satiric contempt for the old order of things, with its lies,\nhypocrisies, and oppressions. He embodied what Mr. Brooke calls \"the\ndestroying element of the Revolution,\" which in him was \"directed by\ngreat mental force and a reckless daring.\" Among other things, he\nstruck at \"the ancient, accredited doctrines of theology, and he struck\nsavagely.\" Mr. Brooke is of opinion that the poet \"brought free inquiry\non theology to the surface of society.\" But we think the critic is\nmistaken. Free inquiry on theology had been going on in England for more\nthan a century, and it culminated, on the popular side, in Paine's _Age\nof Reason_. How far Byron aided the movement is easy of estimation. To\ntell the truth, he hinted disbelief, and scattered doubt over his\npages; but he did no more, he never faced any question manfully; on the\nproblems of religion his mind was chaotic to the very end. It is this\nphenomena which leads Mr. Brooke to infer that Byron believed in the\narbitrary, vengeful God whom he depicted in Cain. \"He believes,\" Mr.\nBrooke says, \"hates what he believes, stamps with fury on his belief,\nand yet clings to it.\" Such a conclusion, however, is one we cannot\naccept. Byron did _not_ believe; his prose, and his letters, prove that\nconclusively. But he had not the courage to disbelieve and to proclaim\nhis disbelief boldly like Shelley, who had a hundred times more real\ncourage than his attitudinising friend, _Manfred_ is terrible posing;\nMr. Meredith calls it \"an after dinner's indigest\"; and _Cain_ is rather\nskimble-skamble stuff, though Mr. Brooke calls it \"the most powerful,\nthe most human, the most serious thing he ever wrote, and the most\neffective\"--which is surely a most inept criticism. Byron rarely\nsucceeded as a serious poet; when he did so it was only in short\nflights. He found the proper field for his genius in _Don Juan_. His\nprovince was satire, and the _Vision of Judgment_ is at the top of\nEnglish achievement in this direction, A creative imagination he did not\npossess, any more than a profound intellect; and it was the perception\nof this fact which prompted his impertinent sneers at Shakespeare.\nBut he had imagination enough to give wings to his satire, and an\ninexhaustible wit which played like lightning around the objects of his\nindignation or contempt. Never did he reason like Shelley, and it is\nclear that he was afraid to; he attacked in his own way what he _felt_\nto be false and despicable, and the sword he wielded was ravishingly\n(or terribly) brilliant, though it _never cut deep enough_. One loves\nto think of him at last, however, laying down his life, as he gave his\nsubstance, for the freedom of Greece. With all his faults, no pious or\ncowardly fear of death ever haunted his mighty spirit. How gloriously he\nwould have died on the battle-field, fighting desperately for the cause\nof the people! The last verses he ever wrote showed the troubled\nstream of his life running pure at its close. Noble and sincere in its\nlanguage, it was a fitting farewell to the world; and although the poet\ndid not find his \"soldier's grave,\" he died none the less for the cause\nto which he had pledged his fortune and the remnant of his strength.\n\n\"Shelley did also a work of destruction,\" says Mr. Brooke, \"though in a\nvery different way from Byron.\" We should think so indeed! The \"also\"\nis singularly weak in this instance, for Shelley attacked the Christian\nsuperstition directly, and _Queen Mab_ had far more readers than _Cain_,\nthe cheap, pirated editions being circulated extensively among the\nworking classes.\n\n\"He began,\" says Mr. Brooke, \"by being an Atheist, he ended by\nbeing what we call an Agnostic.\" But is this any more than a verbal\ndistinction? It appears to us that Shelley's principles are the same\nin _Prometheus Unbound_ as in _Queen Mab_. The change is in their\npresentation; the passionate vehemence of youth is succeeded by the\nrestrained power of manhood. It is true that Shelley sang the praises of\nLove--\"immortal\" Love if you choose to call it so; but Mr. Brooke has\nto admit that he did not \"give it a personal life.\" Shelley also \"thinks\nImmortality improbable,\" yet, Mr. Brooke says, he \"glides into words in\nhis poems which continually imply it.\" But this we deny. Allowing for\npersonification and emphasis, without which there can be no poetry, we\nventure to affirm that there is not a single passage, line, or phrase in\nShelley's later poems which is not in essential harmony with his belief\nin the mortality of man and the practical immortality of the race. It is\none of the offences of theologians (\"liberal\" or otherwise) in relation\nto Shelley, that they try to turn metaphors into logical propositions,\nin order to make the poet give evidence against himself.\n\nIn one respect, however, we quite agree with Mr. Brooke. \"Liberal\ntheology\" has _not_ yet \"reached the level of Shelley's thought,\" nor\ncan it ever do so until it ceases to be Theology and becomes simple\nHumanity. Mr. Brooke may flatter himself that he has \"a higher faith\nthan Shelley had,\" but we think he is mistaken. Substitute \"blinder\" for\n\"higher\" and the expression would be more accurate. Shelley did believe\nthat Love--not alone, but co-operating with Knowledge--would achieve\nthe salvation of mankind; but he resolutely refused to talk about man's\n\"destiny in God the Father,\" which seems to afford such comfort to the\ndevotees of \"liberal theology.\" For this he deserves the gratitude of\nall scientific Humanitarians, who should protest with all their might\nagainst the attempt to emasculate him into a prophet, or even an advance\nagent, of some new form of Godism. \"Liberal theology\" should beget its\nown poet, if it can; it should not try to steal the poet of Humanity.\n\n\n\n\nCHRISTIANITY AND LABOR. *\n\n     * Sept. 24,1893.\n\nWhatever else may be thought about the present coal-strike, or lock-out,\nas it might be more accurately described, it will be admitted by\nmany persons who do not rail at Political Economy that the miners are\nfollowing a sound instinct in demanding that a decent wage shall be a\nfixed element in price. To dig coal out of the earth is worth a minimum\nof (say) thirty shillings a week, and if it will not yield that\nmodest remuneration to the worker let it stay where it is, and let the\ncommunity do without coal altogether. Morally speaking, society has no\nright to demand that an important industry shall be carried on under\nconditions involving the misery, and still less the degradation, of\nthose employed in it. Nor is this a wild, revolutionary doctrine; it is\neminently conservative, in the best sense of the word; and it will have\nto be admitted, and acted upon, in the interest of social order. Of\ncourse it means an inroad on rent and speculative profit, but that is\nnot an immeasurable calamity.\n\nSo much, by way of introduction, on the moral and economic aspects\nof the matter. Our special object is rather theological. We desire to\nnotice the part which religion plays in the struggle between capital\nand labor; or, more properly perhaps, between the \"haves\" and the\n\"have-nots.\"\n\nEveryone with an elementary knowledge of the social and political\nhistory of the last hundred years must be aware that the working\nclasses, as such, have had no help whatever from Christian Churches.\nHere and there an individual clergyman has spoken a word on their\nbehalf, but the great mass of the men of God have been on the side of\n\"the powers that be,\" and have insulted and derided the advocates\nand leaders of Trade Unionism, whom they are still fond of calling\n\"pestilent agitators.\" Yet the Gospel, and especially the Sermon on the\nMount, is stuffed with platitudes about the blessings and virtues of\npoverty, and the curse and wickedness of wealth. Logically, therefore,\njudging by the letter of scripture, the clergy should have been on the\nside of the poor, the wretched, and the oppressed. But this is a case in\nwhich \"the letter killeth,\" and with an eye to their own interests and\nprivileges, to say nothing of their ease and comfort, the clergy found\nthat \"the spirit\" of the Gospel meant the preservation of the existing\nconditions of society. It would be bad for the rich, and well for the\npoor, in the next life; but, in this life, they were to keep their\nrelative places, and remain content in the positions which Providence\nhad assigned them.\n\nIt is not surprising, then, that the Christian Churches--with all\ntheir wealth, power, and at least pretended influence--should be idle or\nunctuously hypocritical spectators of the struggles of labor to obtain a\nfair share of the blessings of civilisation. They extend just sufficient\nverbal patronage to labor to save themselves from being howled at, and\nthrow all their real weight in the scale against it. And it is folly to\nexpect any better of them. The religion and the training of the clergy\nmake them what they are, and they can no more alter than the Ethiopian\ncan change his skin or the leopard his spots. Religion is always the\nconsecration of the past; never the spirit of the future working in\nthe present; and the clergy, who, as Sidney Smith said, are a third\nsex--neither male nor female, but effeminate--are instinctively\nconservative, thoroughly enamored of what is, and obstinately averse to\nall radical changes. Their timidity would be quite phenomenal, if they\nwere _not_ the third sex; and, like all timid people, they can shriek\nand yell and curse and foam at the mouth when they are well frightened.\n\nWere it otherwise, were Christianity a real agency for social\nimprovement, and the clergy the moral leaders of the people, we should\nhave seen by this time a tremendous alteration in the condition, and the\nrelations, of all classes of society. There might still be differences,\nbut they would be on a higher plane, and less grievous and exasperating.\nAs the case stands, all the best of the clergy can do is to preach\nharmless platitudes once a week. One Bishop has been actually\nharangueing the miners, and only provoking contemptuous remarks about\nhis salary. The truth is, that Christian ministers are, in the main,\nonly fit to preach kingdom-come. That is their proper work, ana they are\nexactly cut out for it.\n\nWe are not in love with all the details of the elaborate ecclesiasticism\nof Comte's Religion of Humanity, but we are bound to say that a\nphilosophical priesthood, such as he planned, would be better fitted\nthan a Christian priesthood for the work of moral control and social\ndiplomacy. There is an ethical as well as an economical element in\nmost of these disputes between labor and capital; and a philosophical\npriesthood, vowed to study and simplicity of life, would be able to\nintervene with some effect. It would be something, indeed, to have the\ndeliberate judgment of a dispassionate though sympathetic tribunal, even\nthough it had--and could and should have--no authority to enforce its\ndecisions. At present, however, all this is Utopian, and perhaps it\nalways will be so. We will return, therefore, to our immediate object,\nwhich is to point out the utter uselessness of Christianity in the midst\nof class antagonisms. It cannot control the rich, it cannot assist the\npoor. Its chief idea is to stand between the two, not as an ambassador\nof justice, but as a dispenser of charity. And _this_ charity, instead\nof really helping the people, only serves to obscure the problems to be\nsolved, and to perpetuate the evils it affects to relieve.\n\n\n\n\nAN EASTER EGG FOR CHRISTIANS. *\n\n     * April, 1893.\n\nChristian Fellow Citizens,--\n\nWe are living together in this world, but I do not know whether we\nshall live together in the next world. You probably consider yourself\nas booked for heaven, and me as booked for the other establishment. But\nthat is a question I will not discuss at present. I will only remark\nthat you may be mistaken. Existence, you know, is full of surprises;\nand, as the French say, it is always the unexpected that happens.\n\nWell, my fellow citizens of this world, it is now the time when you\ncelebrate the death and resurrection of your \"Savior.\" Not being of your\nfaith, I cannot join in the commemoration. I shall, however, regard the\nseason after a more primitive fashion. Your Church adopted an old\nPagan festival, the rejoicing at the renewal of the earth in the genial\nspringtide. At the vernal equinox the sun is increasing in power, the\nworld is astir with new life, and begins to reassume its mantle\nof green. Such a time inspired jollity in the human breast. It was\ncommemorated with feast and dance and song. Perhaps it will be so again,\neven in sombre England, when the gloom of your ascetic creed has lifted\nand disappeared. Meanwhile I, as a \"heathen man and a sinner,\" will\nimitate as far as I may the example of the Pagans of old. I will not\nsing, for I am no adept in that line; and my joints are getting too\nstiff for dancing. But I will feast, within the bounds of reason; I will\nleave this million-peopled Babylon and put myself in touch with Mother\nNature; I will feel, if only for a brief while, the spring of the turf\nunder my feet; I will breathe air purified by \"the moving waters at\ntheir priest-like task Of pure ablution round earth's human shores\";\nI will watch the seahorses, with their white crests, in endless rank,\ncharging the shore; I will listen to the sound which Homer heard so long\nbefore your Christ was born--the sound so monotonous, so melancholy, yet\nso soothing and sustaining, which stirs a pulse of poetry in the very\ndullest and most prosaic brain. But before I go I send you this Easter\negg, to show that I do not forget you. Keep it, I pray you; study well\nits inscriptions; and perhaps, after all, you will not pelt me with it\nat the finish.\n\nI have said, my Christian fellow citizens, that your Church appropriated\nan ancient Pagan festival--the festival of spring. I may be told\nby scholars amongst you that the time of Christ's crucifixion and\nresurrection was fixed by the Jewish Passover. I reply that the Passover\nwas itself a spring festival, whose original and natural meaning was\nobscured by priestly arts and legendary stories. That it happened at\nthis time of the year, that it depended on astronomical signs, that\nits commemoration included the sacrifice of the firstlings of the\nflock--shows clearly enough that it was a Jewish counterpart of the\ncommon Gentile celebration. Has it ever occurred to you that if Christ\ndied, he died on a particular day; and that if he rose from the dead, he\nrose on a particular morning? That day, that morning, should have been\nobserved in the proper fashion of anniversaries. But it never was, and\nit is not now. Good Friday--as you curiously, and almost facetiously\ncall the day on which the founder of your faith suffered a painful and\nignominious death--and Easter Sunday, when he left his sepulchre,\nnever fall on the same date in successive years. They are determined by\ncalculations of the position of the sun and the phases of the moon--a\nplanet sacred to lovers and lunatics, and naturally dear therefore to\ndevotion and superstition. You decorate your churches with evergreens\nand flowers as the Pagans decorated their temples and altars. You use\nEaster eggs like the pre-Christian religionists. You show, and your\ncreed shows, in everything that Easter is really a spring festival. The\nyear springs from the tomb of winter, and Christ springs at the same\ntime from the tomb of death.\n\nI am disposed to regard your \"Savior\" as a purely mythical personage,\nlike all other Saviors and sun-gods of antiquity, who were generally,\nif not always, born miraculously of virgin mothers, mysteriously\nimpregnated by celestial visitors; and whose careers, like that of your\nChrist, were marked by portents and prodigies, ending in tribulation and\ndefeat, which were followed by vindication and triumph. Whether there\nwas a man called Jesus, or Joshua (the Jewish form of the name), who\nlived and taught in Galilee and died at Jerusalem, is more than I will\nundertake to determine, and it seems to me a question of microscopic\nimportance. But I am convinced that the Christ of the Gospels is the\nproduct of religious imagination; an ideal figure, constructed out of\nmaterials that were common in the East for hundreds and perhaps for\nthousands of years.\n\nTo confine ourselves, however, to the Easter aspect of the matter, I\nthink you will find--if you read the Gospel story with unprejudiced\neyes--that the closing scenes of Christ's career are quite imaginary.\nThe story of his Trial and Crucifixion is utterly at variance with Roman\nlaw and Jewish custom. It also includes astonishing incidents--such\nas the earthquake which rent the veil of the temple, the three hours'\neclipse of the sun, and the wholesale resurrection of dead \"saints\"--of\nwhich the Romans and the Jews were in a still more astonishing\nignorance. What must have startled the whole or the then known world,\nif it happened, made absolutely no impression on the Hebrew and Gentile\nnations, and not a trace of it remains in the pages of their historians.\nCan you believe that the most remarkable occurrences on record escaped\nthe attention of all who were living at the time, with the exception\nof a handful of men and women, who never took the trouble to write an\naccount of their experiences, but left them to be chronicled by unknown\nwriters long after they themselves were dead?\n\nAll the documentary evidence we possess is Christian. It is the witness\nof an interested party, uncorroborated by a particle of testimony from\nindependent sources. I do not forget that the literature of your early\nChurch includes a letter from Pontius Pilate to the emperor Tiberius,\ngiving a detailed account of the trial, sentence, crucifixion, and\nresurrection of Christ; but this is one of the many forgeries of\nyour early Church, and is now universally rejected as such alike by\nProtestant and by Catholic scholars. To my mind, indeed, this forgery\nitself proves the falsehood of the Gospel narrative; it shows that the\nearly Christians felt the necessity of some corroborative evidence,\nand they manufactured it to give their own statements an air of greater\nplausibility.\n\nTaking the Gospels as they stand, I will ask you to read the story in\nMatthew (not that I believe _he_ wrote it) of the watch at Christ's\nsepulchre. The Jewish priests come to Pilate, and ask him to let the\nsepulchre be sealed and guarded; for the dead impostor had declared he\nwould rise again on the third day, and his disciples might steal his\nbody and say he had risen. The guard is set, but an angel descends from\nheaven, terrifies the soldiers, rolls away the stone, and allows Jesus\nto escape. Whereupon the Jewish priests give the soldiers money to tell\nPilate that they slept at their posts.\n\nHow, I ask, did those Jewish priests know that Jesus had said \"After\nthree days I will rise again\"? According to John (xx. 9), his very\ndisciples were ignorant of this fact--\"For as yet they knew not the\nscripture, that he must rise again from the dead.\" Could it be unknown\nto his intimates, who had been with him day and night for three years,\nin all parts of Palestine; yet well known to the priests, who had only\nseen him occasionally during a few days at Jerusalem?\n\nThere was an \"earthquake\" before the angels descended. Would not\nthis have attracted general attention? And is it conceivable that the\nsoldiers would take money to say they had slept at their posts? The\npunishment for that offence was death. Of what use then was the bribe?\nDo men sell their honor for what they can never enjoy, and count their\nlives as a mere trifle in the bargain? Is it conceivable that the\npriests were so foolish as the story depicts them? Would bribing the\nsoldiers protect them against Christ? If he had risen he was lord of\nlife and death. Would they not have abandoned their projects against\nhim, and sought his forgiveness? He who had the power to revive himself\nhad the power to destroy them.\n\nThe appearances of Jesus, after his resurrection, are grotesque in\ntheir self-contradiction. Now he is a pure ghost, suddenly appearing and\nsuddenly vanishing, and entering a room with shut doors. Then he appears\nas solid flesh and blood, to be felt and handled. He even eats broiled\nfish and honeycomb.\n\nSuch conditions are quite irreconcilable. We may imagine a ghost going\nthrough a keyhole, but is it possible to imagine broiled fish and\nhoneycomb going through the same aperture? Or is the stomach of a ghost\ncapable of digesting such victuals?\n\nHas it never struck you as strange, also, that the risen Christ never\nappeared to anyone but his disciples? No outsider, no independent\nwitness, ever caught a glimpse of him. The story is a party report to\nprove a party position and maintain a party's interests. Surely, if\nChrist died for _all men_, if his resurrection is the pledge of ours,\nand if our inability to believe it involves our perdition, _the fact_\nshould have been established beyond all cavil. Christ should have\nstood before Pilate who sentenced him to be crucified; he should have\nconfronted the Sanhedrim who compassed his death; he might even have\nwalked about freely amongst the Jews during the forty days (more or\nless) during which, as the New Testament narrates, he flitted about\nlike a hedge-row ghost. He should have made his resurrection as clear as\ndaylight, and he left it as dark as night.\n\nTo ask what became of the body of Jesus if he did not rise, is an idle\nquestion. There is not the slightest _contemporary_ evidence that his\nbody was an object of concern. On the other hand, however, the story of\nthe Ascension looks like a convenient refuge. To talk of a risen Christ\nwas to invite the question \"Where is he?\" The story of the Ascension\nenabled the talkers to answer \"He is gone up.\" It relieved them from the\nawkward necessity of producing him.\n\nSpace does not allow of my discussing this subject more extensively. I\ncould swell this Easter egg into gigantic proportions, but I must leave\nit as it is It goes to you with my compliments, and a hope that it will\ndo you good. If it leads any of you to \"take a thought and mend,\" if it\ninduces one of you to review the faith of his childhood, if it stirs a\nrational impulse in a single Christian mind, I shall be amply rewarded\nfor my trouble.--Christian fellow citizens, Adieu!--I remain, Yours for\nReason and Humanity.\n\n\n\n\nDUELLING. *\n\n     * July 22, 1888.\n\nOne result of the recent duel between M. Floquet and the melodramatic\nGeneral Boulanger is that Bishop Freppel has moved in the Chamber of\nDeputies for the legal abolition of private combats. That a bishop\nshould do this is remarkable. If Bishop Freppel possessed any sense of\nhumor, he would leave the task to laymen. His Church did not establish\nduelling; on the contrary, she censured it; but it was countenanced by\nher principles, and her protest was unavailing. The judicial combat was\nan appeal to God, like the ordeal by fire or water, or the purgation by\noath. The Church patronised those forms of superstition which brought\nmen to her altars, and ministered to her profit and power, and she\nopposed those superstitions which were inimical to her interest. When\nlegal proofs failed and suits were undecided; when persons were accused\nof crimes, of which they could neither be proved guilty nor held\nguiltless; or when they lay under gross suspicion of wrong, the Church\nproffered the ordeal. She invited the litigants, or the suspected\nparties, to handle hot iron, plunge their arms into boiling liquid, or\nbe thrown into water deep enough to drown them; and if they underwent\nsuch treatment without injury, she held them innocent. Another device\nwas the oath. The parties went to the Church altar and swore their\ninnocence or the justice of their cause. But all these methods gave\nroom for chicane. Kings and knights protested that the oath led to\nindiscriminate perjury, that if the priests' hands were tickled with\nmoney the hot iron was only painted, and that a suitable fee could\nrender the boiling liquid innocuous to the skin of a baby. They\ntherefore drew their swords, exclaiming, \"Away with this priestly\njugglery! These weapons are better than fire or water or oil, and God\ncan decide the right in single combat as in the Churchman's ordeal.\"\n\n\"Is it not true,\" asked King Gundobald of Bishop Avitus, \"that the event\nof national wars and private combats is directed by the judgment of God;\nand that his providence awards the victory to the juster cause?\" The\nBishop could not answer \"No,\" for if he did he would have demolished the\nwhole Church system of ordeals, so he yielded to the arguments of his\nsovereign.\n\nSingle combats, under the Gothic code, were fought according to judicial\nforms. They were held, Robertson says, \"as solemn appeals to the\nomniscience and justice of the Supreme Being.\" Shakespeare is careful to\nto notice this feature. When Bolingbroke and Norfolk, in _Richard II._,\nchallenge each other as traitors, the king consents to their duel in the\nfollowing terms:\n\nAt Coventry, upon Saint Lambert's day: There shall your swords and\nlances arbitrate The swelling difference of your settled hate. Since we\ncannot atone you, we shall see Justice design the victor's chivalry.\n\nModern duelling is thus a survival of the old judicial combat. The\n\"point of honor\" is the excuse for a practice which has lost its\noriginal sanction. The appeal to God is forgotten, and the duellists\ntalk of \"satisfaction.\" Illogical no doubt, but this is only one of many\ncustoms that survive their original meaning.\n\nNow the Church cannot hold itself guiltless in regard to this folly. She\ncherished the superstition on which it rested. She taught the policy\nof appealing to God, and only frowned on the particular method which\nbrought no grist to her mill. Her own methods were still more senseless.\nUnless the laws of nature were constantly subverted, her ordeals must\nhave operated at random when they were not regulated by fraud. The hand\nof guilt might be harder than that of innocence, and more likely to bear\na moment's contact with hot iron or boiling oil. Besides, as Montesquieu\nobserves, the poltroon stood the poorest chance in the judicial combat,\nand the poltroon was more likely to be guilty than the man of courage.\nThe weak, of course, were at the mercy of the strong; but in one point,\nat least, the combat had an obvious advantage over the other ordeals.\n\nHow amusing it must have been to a sceptic, if such then existed, to\nsee the opposition between the nobles and the clergy. The nobles\nsaid \"Fight!\" and the clergy cried \"That is impious.\" The clergy said\n\"Swear!\" and the nobles cried \"That is sacrilege and leads to perjury.\"\n\nNo less amusing was the turn which combat took in Spain in the eleventh\ncentury. There was a struggle between the Latin and the Gothic liturgy.\nAragon yielded to the papal pressure, but Castile thought the contest\nshould be decided by the sword. Accordingly, Mosheim tells us, two\nchampions were chosen; they fought, and the Latin liturgy was defeated.\nBut the Romish party was not satisfied. The two liturgies were thrown\ninto a fire, and the result of the ordeal was another triumph for\nthe Goths. Still the divine decisions are frail when opposed to the\ninterests of the Church. Queen Constantia, who controlled King Alphonso,\nsided with the pontiff of Rome, and the priest and the lady carried the\nday.\n\nThough incorporated in the judicial system of Christendom, the duel is\nscorned by the Turks, and was unknown to the Greeks and Romans. Lord\nBacon remarks this in one of his admirable law tracts:\n\n\"All memory doth consent that Greece and Rome were the most valiant and\ngenerous nations of the world; and, that which is more to be noted, they\nwere free estates, and not under a monarchy; whereby a man would think\nit a great deal the more reason that particular persons should have\nrighted themselves; and yet they had not this practice of duels, nor\nanything that bare show thereof.\" (_Charge against Duels._)\n\nBacon observes that the most valorous and generous nations scorn this\npractice. Why then did it obtain so long in Christendom? Was it because\nthe Northern and Western nations were cowardly and selfish? Nothing\nof the kind; it was because they were superstitious, and their\nsuperstition was cherished by the Church. Even at the present day the\nChurch calls international combat an appeal to God; regimental banners\nare consecrated by priests, and laid up in temples when dilapidated;\nand Catholic and Protestant priests alike implore victory for their\nrespective sides in time of war. And why not? Is not the Bible God \"the\nLord of Hosts\" and \"a man of war\"? Did he not teach David's fingers to\nfight? Were not Joshua and Jehu, the two greatest tigers in history, his\nchosen generals? Why then should he be averse to international\nbutchery in Europe? Should he not rejoice in the next bloody cockpit of\nfeatherless bipeds? And is it not hard to see his infinite appetite for\nblood reduced to content itself with an occasional duel, in which not\nenough of the sanguine fluid is shed to make a small black-pudding?\nBishop Freppel is ill-advised. He should not rob his Deity of his last\nconsolation.\n\n\n\n\nDOWN AMONG THE DEAD MEN. *\n\n     * July 2, 1893.\n\nThe ramming and sinking of the \"Victoria\" is the great event of the day.\nIt is said to show the uselessness of big ironclads in naval warfare.\nBut as the \"Camperdown,\" which sent the \"Victoria\" to the bottom in\na few minutes, has herself sustained very little damage, it looks as\nthough \"rams\" were anything but inefficient. There has never yet been\nan engagement between two fleets of ironclads, and no one knows how they\nwould behave in an actual battle. Our own impression is that both\nfleets would go to the bottom, and this opinion is shared by a good many\npractical persons at Portsmouth and Devonport. However that may be, it\nis a great pity that \"civilised\" nations are still so uncivilised as to\nspend their time and money on these costly engines of destruction. We\nare well aware that the newspapers go into hysterics over our soldiers\nand sailors, and no doubt many of them are very gallant fellows. But\nin this, we venture to think, they do not represent the masses of the\npeople. Never have we witnessed such deep and sincere enthusiasm as was\ndisplayed by the crowd of spectators at the Agricultural Hall, while\nthe American, Portuguese, and English firemen were going through their\nevolutions. The business of these fine fellows was to _save_ life. They\nincurred the deadliest danger for human preservation, and not for human\ndestruction. And how the people cheered them as they rode upon their\nengines, drawn by galloping horses! With what breathless interest they\nwatched them climbing up ladders, sliding down ropes, and bearing men\non their backs out of third-floor windows! It did one good to watch the\nproceedings, which showed that a new spirit was taking possession of\nthe people, that they were beginning to be more interested in the savers\nthan in the slayers of men.\n\nBut all this is a digression. Let us return to the \"Victoria.\" She is\nnow in eighty fathoms of water with her hundreds of dead. Poor fellows!\ntheirs was a sad fate; though not more so than the fate of miners\nblasted or suffocated in explosive pits. We pity their dear\nones--mothers, sisters, wives, and children. Hundreds, perhaps\nthousands, of hearts are aching on their account; mourning for the dead\nwho will never be buried under the sweet churchyard grass, though they\nhave the whole ocean for their tomb and the stars for its nightlamps.\n\nOn Sunday, of course, the sky-pilots, all over England, were busy at\n\"improving the occasion.\" They always make profit out of death and\ndisaster. \"Prepare to meet thy God!\" was the lesson which most of\nthem derived from this catastrophe. Of course the preachers are ready\n_themselves_. Who can doubt it? But they are in no hurry to have it\ntested. They do not want to meet their God until they are obliged to. It\nis so much better to be a commercial traveller in God's service than to\ntake a situation in the house.\n\nSome of the preachers dared to talk about \"Providence\"--the sweet little\ncherub that sits up aloft, to keep watch o'er the life of poor Jack, and\nlets him go to the bottom or furnish a dinner for sharks. Surely that\nProvidence is a rare old fraud. A cripple, a paralytic, a sleeper,\na dead man, could have done as much for the \"Victoria\" as Providence\nmanaged to do. \"Oh!\" it is said, \"but the drowned sailors are gone to\nHeaven; Providence looked after them in that way.\" Indeed! Then why do\nyou lament over them? Still more, why do you congratulate the survivors?\nAccording to your theory, they have missed a slice of good luck.\n\nWe have frequently remarked, and we now repeat, that religion is based\nupon the bed-rock of _selfishness_; and nothing proves the truth of\nthis so clearly, and so convincingly, as the talk that people indulge in\nabout Providence. For instance, take this telegram, which is printed\nin the newspapers as having been sent home to a gentleman in\nEngland:--\"Jack saved. Awful affair. Thank God!\" This telegram was\nwritten hastily, but it was sincere; the writer had no time to drop into\nhypocrisy. \"Jack saved\" was his first thought; that is, Jack is still\non earth and out of heaven. \"Awful affair\" was his second thought; that\nis, a lot of other poor devils are gone to heaven--anyhow, they are no\nlonger on earth. \"Thank God\" was his third thought; that is, Jack's\nall right. Thus it was two for our Jack, and one for all the hundreds\nwho perished! It may be pointed out, too, that \"Thank God!\" comes in\nthe wrong place; where it stands it seems to thank God for the calamity.\nYes, so it does, if we look at the mere composition; but the order of\nthe ejaculations is all right, if we look at the sentiment, the pious\nsentiment, of the person who wrote the telegram. He followed the logic\nof his personal feelings, like everyone else who \"thanks God\" and\ntalks of Providence.\n\nSeason and personal feeling often do not coincide. In this case, for\ninstance, it requires a very slight exercise of the intellect to see\nthat, if Providence saved \"Jack,\" Providence drowned the rest. \"No,\"\nsome will reply, \"Providence did not drown them, but only let them\ndrown.\" Well, that is exactly the same thing. Superficially, it is the\nsame thing; for Providence, like men, is responsible for omissions\nas well as commissions. If you let a blind man walk over a precipice\nwithout warning him, you are his murderer, you are guilty of his blood.\nResolving not to do a thing is as much an act of will as resolving to do\nit. \"Thou shalt\" is a law as imperative as \"Thou shalt not,\" though\nit does not figure in the decalogue. Profoundly also, as well as\nsuperficially, Providence, if it saved Jack, killed those who perished;\nfor, as Jack was not visibly fished out of the water by Providence, it\ncan only be held that Providence saved him on the ground that Providence\n_does everything_, which covers the whole of our contention. \"I the Lord\ndo all these things.\" So says the Bible, and so you must believe, if you\nhave a God at all.\n\n\n\n\nSMIRCHING A HERO.\n\n     \"He who fights with priests may make up his mind to have\n     his poor good name torn and befouled by the most infamous\n     lies and the most cutting slanders.\"--Heine.\n\nThe great poet and wit, Heinrich Heine, from whom we select a motto for\nthis article, was not very partial to Englishmen, and still less partial\nto Scotchmen. He had no objection to their human nature, but a strong\nobjection to their religion, which so resembles that of the chosen\npeople--being, indeed, chiefly modelled on the Old Testament\npattern--that he was led to describe them as modern Jews, who only\ndiffered from the ancient ones in eating pork. Doubtless a great\nimprovement has taken place since Heine penned that pungent description,\nbut Scotland is still the home of orthodoxy, and most inaccessible to\nLiberal ideas, unless they wear a political garb. It need not astonish\nus, therefore, that a bitter attack on a Freethought martyr like\nGiordano Bruno should emanate from the land of John Knox; or that it\nshould appear in the distinctly national magazine which is called the\n_Scottish Review_. The writer does not disclose his name, and this is a\ncharacteristic circumstance. He indulges his malevolence, and airs his\nignorance, under a veil of anonymity. His stabs are delivered like those\nof a bravo, who hides his face as he deals his treacherous blow.\n\nMany books and articles have been written on Giordano Bruno, but this\nwriter seems ignorant of them all, except a recent volume by a Romish\npriest of the Society of Jesus, which he places at the top of his\narticle, and relies upon throughout as an infallible authority. It does\nnot occur to him that an account of Bruno by a Jesuit member of the\nChurch which murdered him, is hardly likely to be impartial; nor does\nhe scent anything suspicious in the fact that the documents reporting\nBruno's trial were all written by the Inquisition. He would probably\nsniff at a report of the trial of Jesus Christ by the Scribes and\nPharisees, yet that is precisely the kind of document on which he relies\nto blast the memory of Bruno.\n\nSome of those Inquisition records he translates, apparently fancying he\nis making a revelation, though? they have long been before the scholarly\npublic, and were extensively cited in the English _Life of Bruno_, by I.\nFrith, which saw the light more than twelve months ago. Berti reprinted\nthe documents of Bruno's trial in Venice in 1880, so that the startling\nrevelations of Father Previti are at least seven years behind the fair.\n\nBefore dealing, however, with the use he would make of those documents,\nwe think it best to track this Scotch slanderer throughout his slimy\ncourse, and expose his astounding mixture of ignorance, impudence and\nmeanness.\n\nLet us take two instances of the last \"virtue\" first. He actually\ncondescends to attempt a feeble point in regard to Bruno's name. Bruno,\nhe sagely observes--with an air of originality only intelligible on the\nground that he is conscious of writing for the veriest ignoramuses--is\nthe same as _Brown_; and hence, if we take the baptismal name of Filippo\nBruno, it simply means Philip Brown. Well, what of that? What's in a\nname? One great English poet rejoiced in the vulgar name of Jonson; two\nother English poets bore the no less vulgar name of Thomson; while\nat least two have descended so low as Smith. We might even remind the\northodox libeller that Joshua, the Jewish formi of Jesus, was as common\nas Jack is among ourselves. Perhaps the reminder will sound blasphemous\nin his delicate ears, but fact is fact, and if reputations are to depend\non names, we may as well be impartial.\n\nNow, for our second instance. Bruno was betrayed to the Venetian\nInquisition by Count Mocenigo while he was that nobleman's guest.\nMocenigo had invited him to Venice in order that he might learn what\nthis writer calls \"his peculiar system for developing and strengthening\nthe memory,\" although this \"peculiar\" system was simply the Lullian\nmethod. What the nobleman really wanted to learn seems to have been the\nBlack Art. He complained, and Bruno resolved to leave him; whereupon the\n\"nobleman,\" who had harbored Bruno for months, forcibly detained him,\nand denounced him to the Inquisition as a heretic and a blasphemer. A\nmore dastardly action is difficult to conceive, but our Scotch libeller\nis ready to defend it, or at least to give it a coat of whitewash. He\nallows that Mocenigo does not appear to have been animated \"with the\nmotive of religious zeal,\" and that his \"conscience\" never \"troubled\nhim\" before the \"personal difference.\" But he discovers a plea for\nthis Judas in his \"sworn statement\" to the Inquisition that he did not\nsuspect Bruno of being a monk until the very day of their quarrel. What\nmiserable sophistry! Would not a man who violated the most sacred laws\nof friendship and hospitality be quite capable of telling a lie? Still\nmore miserable is the remark that Bruno was not ultimately tried on\nMocenigo's denunciations, but on his own published writings. Jesus\nChrist was not tried on the denunciations of Judas Iscariot, but on\nhis own public utterances, yet whoever pleaded that this gave a sweeter\nsavor to the traitor's kiss?\n\nSo much--though more might be said--for the writer's meanness. Now for\nhis other virtues, and especially his ignorance. After dwelling on the\nbattle at Rome over the proposal to erect a public monument to Bruno,\nthis writer tells us that \"a small literature is arising on the\nsubject,\" and that the name of Bruno is \"suddenly invested with an\nimportance which it never formerly possessed.\" Apparently he is unaware\nthat, so far from a small literature arising, a large Bruno literature\nhas long existed. He has only to turn to the end of Frith's book, and\nhe will find an alphabetical list of books, articles, and criticisms\non Bruno, filling no less than ten pages of small type. He might also\nenlighten his ridiculous darkness by reading the fine chapter in\nLewes's _History of Philosophy_, Mr. Swinburne's two noble sonnets, and\nProfessor Tyndall's glowing eulogy of Bruno's scientific prescience in\nthe famous Belfast address. Perhaps Hallam, Schwegler, Hegel, Bunsen\nand Cousin are too recondite for the Scotch libeller's perusal; but\nhe might, at any rate, look up Lewes, Swinburne and Tyndall, who are\nprobably accessible in his local Free Library.\n\nWhat on earth, too, does he mean by Bruno's \"great obscurity\" when\nhe returned to Italy and fell into the jaws of the Inquisition? Every\nscholar in that age was more or less obscure, for the multitude\nwas illiterate, and sovereigns and soldiers monopolised the public\nattention. But as notoriety then went, Bruno was a famous figure. Proof\nof this will be given presently. Meanwhile we may notice the cheap sneer\nat Bruno as \"a social and literary failure.\" Shelley was a literary\nfailure in his lifetime, but he is hardly so now; and if Bruno was poor\nand unappreciated, Time has adjusted the balance, for after the lapse of\nthree centuries he is loved and hated by the rival parties of progress\nand reaction.\n\nNow let us disprove the Scotch libeller's statements as to \"the\nextreme obscurity in which Giordano Bruno lived and died.\" Bruno was so\n\"obscure\" that he fled from Naples, and doffed his priest's raiment,\nat the age of twenty-eight or twenty-nine, because his superiors were\nproceeding against him for heresy, through an act of accusation\nwhich comprised no less than one hundred and thirty counts. He was\nso \"obscure\" that the rest of his life was a prolonged flight from\npersecution. He was so \"obscure\" that the Calvinists hunted him out of\nGeneva, whence he narrowly escaped with his life; the documents relating\nto the proceedings against him being still preserved in the Genevan\narchives. He was so \"obscure\" that he took a professorship at Toulouse,\nand publicly lectured there to large audiences for more than a year. He\nwas so \"obscure\" that King Henry III. made him professor extraordinary\nat Paris, and excused him from attending Mass. He was so \"obscure\" that\nthe learned doctors of the Sorbonne waxed wroth with him, and made\nit obvious that his continued stay in Paris would be dangerous to his\nhealth. He was so \"obscure\" that he lived for nearly three years as the\nguest of the French ambassador in London. He was so \"obscure\" that he\nwas known at the court of Elizabeth. He was so \"obscure\" that he was\na friend of Sir Philip Sidney, and an intimate associate of Dyer, Fulk\nGreville, and the chief wits of his age. He was so \"obscure\" that he was\nallowed, as a distinguished foreigner, to lecture at Oxford, and to\nhold a public disputation on the Aristotelian philosophy before the\nChancellor and the university. He was so \"obscure\" that on his return to\nParis he held another public disputation under the auspices of the King.\nHe was so \"obscure\" that his orations were listened to by the senate of\nthe university of Wittenberg. He was so \"obscure\" that he was publicly\nexcommunicated by the zealot Boethius. He was so \"obscure\" that the\nVenetian Inquisition broke through its stern rule, and handed him over\nas a special favor to the Inquisition of Rome. He was so \"obscure\" that\nhe was at last \"butchered to make a Roman holiday,\" the cardinals having\npresided at his trial, and his sentence being several pages at length.\nSuch was \"the obscurity in which Giordano Bruno lived and died.\"\n\nThe Scotch libeller hints that Bruno was not burnt after all. He\nforgets, or he is ignorant of the fact, that all doubt on that point is\nremoved by the three papers discovered in the Vatican Library. He merely\nrepeats the insinuation of M. Desduits, which has lost its extremely\nsmall measure of plausibility since the discovery of those documents.\nThe martyrdom of Bruno is much better attested than the Crucifixion.\nThere always was contemporary evidence as well as unbroken tradition,\nand now we have proofs as complete as can be adduced for any event in\nhistory.\n\nFrom the documentary evidence it is clear that Bruno fought hard for\nhis life, and he would have been a fool or a suicide to have acted\notherwise. He bent all his dialectical skill, and all his subtle\nintellect, to the task of proving that religion and philosophy were\ndistinct, and that so long as a scholar conformed in practice he should\nbe allowed the fullest liberty of speculation. The Inquisition, however,\npretends that he abjured all his errors, and the Scotch libeller is\npleased to say he recanted. But, in that case, why was Bruno burnt\nalive at the stake? According to the laws of the Inquisition, all who\nreconciled themselves to the Church after sentence were strangled before\nthey were burnt. And why was Bruno allowed a week's grace before his\nexecution, except to give him the opportunity of recanting? Despite\nall this Jesuitical special pleading, the fact remains that Bruno\nwas sentenced and burnt as an incorrigible heretic; and the fact also\nremains that when the crucifix was held up for him to kiss as he stood\namidst the flames, he rejected it, as Scioppus wrote, \"with a terrible\nmenacing countenance.\" Not only did he hurl scorn at his judges, telling\nthem that they passed his sentence with more fear than he heard it; but\nhis last words were that \"he died a martyr and willingly\"--_diceva che\nmoriva martire et volontieri_.\n\nBruno is further charged by the Scotch libeller with servility, an\naccusation about as plausible as that Jesus Christ was a highwayman. A\npassage is cited from Bruno's high-flown panegyric on Henry III. as \"a\nspecimen of the language he was prepared to employ towards the great\nwhen there was anything to be got from them.\" Either this writer is\nineffably ignorant, or his impudence is astounding. In the first place,\nthat was an age of high-flown dedications. Look at Bacon's fulsome\ndedication of his _Advancement of Learning_ to James I. Nay, look at\nthe dedication of our English Bible to the same monarch, who is put\nvery little below God Almighty, and compared to the sun for strength\nand glory. In the next place, Bruno's praise of Henry III. was far\nfrom mercenary. He never at any time had more than bread to eat. He was\ngrateful to the King for protection, and his gratitude never abated.\nWhen Henry was in ill repute, Bruno still praised him, and these\npanegyrics were put into one of the counts against \"the heretic\" when he\nwas arraigned at Venice.\n\nThe last libel is extorted from Bruno's comedy, _Il Candelajo_. The\nScotch puritan actually scents something obscene in the very title; to\nwhich we can only reply by parodying Carlyle--\"The nose smells what it\nbrings.\" As for the comedy itself, it must be judged by the standard of\nits age. Books were then all written for men, and reticence was\nunknown. Yet, free as _Il Candelajo_ is sometimes in its portrayal of\ncontemporary manners, it does not approach scores of works which are\nfound \"in every gentleman's library.\" It certainly is not freer than\nShakespeare; it is less free than the Song of Solomon; it is infinitely\nless free than Ezekiel. Nor was the comedy the work of Bruno's maturity;\nit was written in his youth, while he was a priest, before he fell under\ngrave suspicion of heresy, and we may be sure it was relished by his\nbrother priests in the Dominican monastery. To draw from this youthful\n_jeu d'e'sprit_, a theory of Bruno's attitude towards women is a\ngrotesque absurdity. We have his fine sonnets written in England,\nespecially the one \"Inscribed to the most Virtuous and Delightful\nLadies,\" in which he celebrates the beauty, sweetness, and chastity\nof our English \"spouses and daughters of angelic birth.\" Still more\nstriking is the eulogy in his \"Canticle of the Shining Ones.\" Bruno,\nlike every poet, was susceptible to love; but he was doomed to wander,\nand the affection of wife and babes was not for him. So he made\nPhilosophy his mistress, and his devotion led him to the stake. Surely\nthere was a prescience of his fate in the fine apostrophe of his _Heroic\nRapture_--\"O worthy love of the beautiful! O desire for the divine!\nlend me thy wings; bring me to the dayspring, to the clearness of the\nyoung morning; and the outrage of the rabble, the storms of Time, the\nslings and arrows of Fortune, shall fall upon this tender body and shall\nweld it to steel.\"\n\n\n\n\nKIT MARLOWE AND JESUS CHRIST. *\n\n     * December, 1888.\n\nChristopher Marlowe, whose \"mighty line\" was celebrated by Ben Jonson,\nis one of the glories of English literature. He was the morning star\nof our drama, which gives us the highest place in modern poetry.\nHe definitively made our blank verse, which it only remained for\nShakespeare to improve with his infinite variety; and although\nhis daring, passionate genius was extinguished at the early age of\ntwenty-nine, it has reverent admirers among the best and greatest\ncritics of English literature. Many meaner luminaries have had their\nmonuments while Marlowe's claims have been neglected; but there is now\na project on foot to erect something in honor of his memory, and the\ncommittee includes the names of Robert Browning and Algernon Swinburne.\n\nThis project evokes a howl from an anonymous Christian in the columns of\nthe _Pall Mall Gazette_. He protests against the \"grotesque indecency\nof such a scheme,\" and stigmatises Marlowe as \"a disreputable scamp, who\nlived a scandalous life and died a disgraceful death.\" That Marlowe was\n\"a scamp\" we have on the authority of those who denounced his scepticism\nand held him up as a frightful warning. His fellow poets, like Chapman\nand Drayton, spoke of him with esteem. An anonymous eulogist called him\n\"kynde Kit Marlowe\"; and Edward Blunt, his friend and publisher, said\n\"the impression of the man hath been dear unto us, living an after-life\nin our memory.\" Assuredly Shakespeare's \"dead shepherd\" was no scamp.\nHe apparently sowed his wild oats, like hundreds of other young men who\nwere afterwards lauded by the orthodox. He was fond of a glass of wine\nin an age when tea and coffee were unknown, and English ladies drank\nbeer for breakfast. And if he perished in a sudden brawl, it was at a\ntime when everyone wore arms, and swords and daggers were readily drawn\nin the commonest quarrels. Nor should it be forgotten that he belonged\nto a \"vagabond\" class, half-outlawed and denounced by the clergy; that\nthe drama was only then in its infancy; that it was difficult to earn\nbread by writing even immortal plays; and that irregularity of life\nwas natural in a career whose penury was only diversified by haphazard\nsuccesses. After all is said, Marlowe was no man's enemy but his own;\nand it is simply preposterous to judge him by the social customs of a\nmore fastidious and, let us add, a more hypocritical age.\n\nOur Christian protestor is shocked at the suggestion that the Marlowe\nmemorial should be placed in Westminster Abbey, \"an edifice which\nI believe was originally built to the honor of Jesus Christ.\" \"The\nblasphemies of Voltaire,\" he says, \"pale into insignificance when\ncompared with those of Marlowe;\" he \"deliberately accused Jesus Christ\nand his personal followers of crimes which are justly considered\nunmentionable in any civilised community,\" and \"any monument which may\nbe erected in honor of Christopher Marlowe will be a deliberate insult\nto Christ.\"\n\nNow those \"blasphemies\" are set forth in the accusation of an informer,\none Richard Bame, who was hanged at Tyburn the next year for some\nmortal offence. Marlowe's death prevented his arrest, and it is somewhat\nextravagant--not to give it a harsher epithet--to write as though\nthe accusation had been substantiated in a legal court. One of Bame's\nstatements about Marlowe's itch for coining is, upon the face of it,\nabsurd, and the whole document is open to the gravest suspicion. It is\nhighly probable however, that Marlowe, who was a notorious Freethinker,\nwas not very guarded in his private conversation; and we have no\ndoubt that in familiar intercourse, which a mercenary or malicious\neavesdropper might overhear, he indulged in what Christians regard as\n\"blasphemy.\" Like nine out of ten unbelievers, he very likely gave vent\nto pleasantries on the subject of Christian dogmas. There is nothing\nincredible in his having said that \"Moses was but a juggler,\" that\n\"the New Testament is filthily written\" (Mr. Swinburne calls it \"canine\nGreek\"), or that \"all Protestants are hypocritical asses.\" But whether\nhe really did say that the women of Samaria were no better than they\nshould be, that Jesus's leaning on John's bosom at the last supper was\na questionable action, that Mary's honor was doubtful and Jesus an\nillegitimate child--cannot be decided before the Day of Judgment;\nthough, in any case, we fail to see that such things make \"the\nblasphemies of Voltaire pale into insignificance.\"\n\nWe candidly admit, however, that a memorial to Marlowe would be\nincongruous in Westminster Abbey if Darwin were not buried there; but\nafter admitting the high-priest of Evolution it seems paltry to shriek\nat the admission of other unbelievers. It will not do to blink the fact\nof Marlowe's Atheism, as is done by the two gentlemen who took up the\ncudgels on his behalf in the _Pall Mall Gazette_. Setting aside the\naccusation of that precious informer, there is other evidence of\nMarlowe's heresy. Greene reproached him for his scepticism, and every\neditor has remarked that his plays are heathenish in spirit. Lamb not\nonly calls attention to the fact that \"Marlowe is said to have been\ntainted with Atheistical positions,\" but remarks that \"Barabas the\nJew, and Faustus the Conjurer, are offsprings of a mind which at least\ndelighted to dally with interdicted subjects. They both talk a language\nwhich a believer would have been tender of putting into the mouth of a\ncharacter though but in fiction.\" Dyce could not \"resist the conviction\"\nthat Marlowe's impiety was \"confirmed and daring.\" His extreme\nFreethought is also noticed by Mr. Bullen and Mr. Havelock Ellis. There\nis, indeed, no room for a rational doubt on this point. Marlowe was an\nAtheist. But a sincere Christian, like Robert Browning, is nevertheless\nready to honor Marlowe's genius; quite as ready, in fact, as Algernon\nSwinburne, whose impiety is no less \"confirmed and daring\" than\nMarlowe's own. There is freemasonry among poets; their opinions may\ndiffer, but they are all \"sealed of the tribe.\" And surely we may all\nadmire genius as a natural and priceless distinction, apart from all\nconsiderations of system and creed. What Atheist fails to reverence\nthe greatness of Milton? And why should not a Christian reverence the\ngreatness of Marlowe? If creed stands in the way, the Christian may keep\nhis Dante and his Milton, his Cowper and his Wordsworth; but he loses\nShakespeare, Byron, and Shelley; he loses Goethe and Victor Hugo; nay,\nhe loses Homer, AEschylus, Sophocles, Pindar, Lucretius, Virgil, Horace,\nand all the splendid poets of Persia whose lyres have sounded under the\nMohammedan Crescent. The distinctively Christian poets, as the world\ngoes, are in a very decided minority; and it is a piece of grotesque\nimpudence to ban Christopher Marlowe because he declined to echo the\nconventional praises of Jesus Christ.\n\n\n\n\nJEHOVAH THE RIPPER. *\n\n     * November, 1888.\n\nThe Whitechapel monster has once more startled and horrified London, and\nagain he has left absolutely no clue to his identity. He is the\nmystery of mysteries. He comes and goes like a ghost. Murder marks his\nappearance, but that is all we know of him. The rest is silence. The\npolice, the vigilance societies, and the private detectives are all\nbaffled. They can only stare at each other in blind dismay, as helpless\nas the poor victims of the fiend's performances. All sorts of theories\nare started, but they are all in the air--the wild conjectures of\nirresponsible imaginations. All sorts of stories are afloat, but they\ncontradict each other. As for descriptions of the monster, it is easy\nenough to say that the police have advertised for nine or ten \"wanted\"\ngentlemen, of various heights, dimensions, colors, and costumes, who are\nall the very same person.\n\nWe have no desire to dabble in murder, nor do we aspire to turn an\nhonest penny by the minute description of bodily mutilations. But while\nthe Whitechapel atrocities are engaging the public attention, we are\ntempted to contribute our quota of speculation as to the monster's\nidentity. We thought of doing so before, but we reflected that it was\nperfectly useless while such a pig-headed person as Sir Charles Warren\nwas at the head of the police. Now, however, that he is gone, and there\nis a chance of common-sense suggestions being fairly considered, we\nventure to propound our theory, in the hope that it will at least be\ntreated on its merits.\n\nWell now, to the point. Our theory is that the Whitechapel murderer\nis------ \"Whom?\" the reader cries. Wait awhile. Brace up your nerves for\nthe dread intelligence. The East-end fiend, the Whitechapel devil, the\nslaughterer and mutilator of women, is--Jehovah!\n\n\"Blasphemous!\" is shouted from a million throats. But science is used to\nsuch shriekings. We pause till the noise subsides, and then proceed to\npoint out that our theory fulfils the grand condition of fitting in with\nall the facts.\n\nThe Whitechapel murderer is shrouded in mystery. So is Jehovah. The\nWhitechapel murderer comes no one knows whence and goes no one knows\nwhither. So does Jehovah. The Whitechapel murderer appears in different\ndisguises. So does Jehovah. The Whitechapel murderer's movements baffle\nall vigilance. So do Jehovah's. The Whitechapel murderer comes and goes,\nappears and disappears, with the celerity and noiselessness of a ghost.\nSo does Jehovah, who _is_ a ghost. Thus far, then, the similarity is\nmarvellously close, and a _prima facie_ case of identity is established.\n\nIt will very likely be objected that Jehovah is incapable of such\natrocities. But this is the misconception of ignorance or the politeness\nof hypocrisy. Jehovah has written his autobiography, and on his own\nconfession his murderous exploits were very similar to those of the\nWhitechapel terror. Appealing to that incontrovertible authority,\nwe propose to show that he has every disposition to commit these\nenormities.\n\nAccording to his own history of himself, Jehovah is passionately fond\nof bloodshed. The sanguine fluid which courses in our veins is the\nonly thing that appeases him. \"Without shedding of blood,\" he tells us\nthrough the pen of St. Paul, \"there is no remission\" of any debts owing\nto him. He called on Abraham, his friend, to stick a knife into his own\nson. He slew the first-born of every family in Egypt in a single night.\nHe accepted the blood of a young virgin offered him by Jephthah. He\nslew 50,070 men at Beth-Shemesh for looking into his private trunk. He\nordered his \"chosen\" friends, a famous set of banditti, to exterminate,\nmen, women, children, and even animals, and to \"leave alive nothing that\nbreatheth.\" He massacred 70,000 citizens of Palestine because their king\ntook a census, a social experiment to which he has a rooted antipathy.\nHe had a house especially built for him, and gave orders that it should\ndaily be drenched with blood. According to one of his candid friends,\nArchdeacon Farrar, \"the floor must literally have swum with blood, and\nunder the blaze of Eastern sunlight, the burning of fat and flesh on the\nlarge blazing altar must have been carried on amid heaps of sacrificial\nfoulness--offal and skins and thick smoke and steaming putrescence.\" On\none occasion, when in a state of murderous frenzy, he cried out, \"I will\nmake mine arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh.\"\n\nJehovah's passion for bloodshed is proved out of his own mouth. Let\nus now see his love of mutilation. He generally did this by proxy,\nand enjoyed the spectacle without undergoing the trouble. Some of his\nfriends took a gentleman named Adoni-bezek, and \"cut off his thumbs and\nhis great toes.\" Wishing to kill a certain Eglon, the king of Moab,\nhe sent an adventurer called Ehud with \"a present from Jehovah.\" The\npresent turned out to be an eighteen-inch knife, which Ehud thrust into\nEglon's belly; a part of the body on which the Whitechapel murderer\nis fond of experimenting. Jehovah's friend David, a man after his own\nheart, mutilated no less than four hundred men, and gave their foreskins\nto his wife as a dowry. Incurring Jehovah's displeasure and wishing to\nconciliate him, he attacked certain cities, captured their inhabitants,\nand cut them in pieces with saws, axes, and harrows.\n\nJehovah is particularly savage towards females. He cursed a woman for\neating an apple, and instead of killing her on the spot, he determined\nto torture her every time she became a mother. A friend of his--and we\njudge people by their friends--cut a woman up into twelve pieces, and\nsent them to various addresses by parcels' delivery. Another of his\nfriends, called Menahem, made a raid on a certain territory, and \"all\nthe women therein that were with child he _ripped up_.\" Jehovah himself,\nbeing angry with the people of Samaria, promised to slay them with the\nsword, dash their infants to pieces, and _rip up_ their pregnant women.\nNo doubt he fulfilled his promise, and he would scarcely have made it\nif he had not been accustomed to such atrocities. It appears to us,\ntherefore, that he is fully entitled to the name of Jehovah the Ripper.\n\nWe have not exhausted our evidence. Far more could be adduced, but we\nhope this will suffice. It may, of course, be objected that Jehovah has\nreformed, that he is too old for midnight adventures, that he has lost\nhis savage cunning, and that his son keeps a sharp eye on the aged\nassassin. But the ruling passion is never really conquered; it is even,\nas the proverb says, strong in death. We venture, therefore, to suggest\nthat the Whitechapel murderer is Jehovah; and although keen eyes may\ndetect a few superficial flaws in our theory--for what theory is perfect\ntill it is demonstrated?--we protest that it marvellously covers the\nfacts of the case, and is infinitely superior to any other theory that\nhas hitherto been broached.\n\n\n\n\nTHE PARSONS' LIVING WAGE. *\n\n     * December, 1893.\n\nIn our last week's article we criticised the attitude of the Churches\ntowards the working classes, with especial reference to the late\nConference of \"representatives of Christian Churches\" in the Jerusalem\nChamber. It will be remembered that the Conference was a ridiculous\nfiasco. The upshot of it was simply and absolutely nothing. The\nChristian gentlemen there assembled could not bring themselves to pass\na resolution in favor of \"a living wage\" for the workers. Mr. Hugh Price\nHughes, in particular, asserted that no one could define it, and the\ndiscussion was therefore a waste of time. But suppose the question had\nbeen one of \"a living wage\" for the sky-pilots; would not a minimum\nfigure have been speedily decided? Thirty shillings a week would have\nbeen laughed at. Two pounds would have been treated as an absurdity. Men\nof God, who have to live while they cultivate the Lord's vineyard,\nwant a more substantial share of the good things of this world. Nothing\nsatisfies them but the certainty of something very valuable in this\nlife, as well as the promise of the life that is to come. No doubt is\nentertained in the clerical mind as to the laborer being worthy of\nhis hire. But they give their first attention to the clerical laborer;\npartly because they know him most intimately, and have a deep concern\nfor his secular welfare; and partly because charity begins at home and\nlooking after one's self is the primary law of Christian prudence.\n\nA burning and a shining light among the Nonconformists of the last\ngeneration was the famous Mr. Binney, a shrewd preacher who published\na book on How to Make the Best of Both Worlds. We believe he combined\nprecept and practice. At any rate, he expounded a principle which has\nalways had the devotion of the great bulk of Christian ministers. These\ngentry _have_ made the best of both worlds. Most of them have been\ncomfortably assured of good positions in Kingdom-Come, and most of them\nhave been comfortably provided for in this land of pilgrimage, this\nscene of tribulation, this miserable vale of tears. Come rain or shine,\nthey have had little cause for complaint. Hard work has rarely brought\nthem to a premature old age. Famine has never driven them into untimely\ngraves. Even the worst paid has had a hope of better thing-. There were\nfine plums in the profession, which might drop into watering mouths.\nWhat if the curate had little pocket money and a small account at the\ntailor's, with a large account at the shoemaker's through excessive\nperegrinations on shanks's mare? There was a vicarage, a deanery, a\nbishopric in perspective. A fat purse might be dandled some day, and the\nwell-exercised limbs repose gracefully in a carriage and pair. If the\nworst came to the worst, one might marry a patron's daughter, and get\nthe reversion of the living; or even snap up the ninth daughter of a\nbishop, and make sure of some preferment.\n\nYes, the clericals, taking them altogether, have had a very good \"living\nwage.\" After all these centuries, it is high time they began to think\nabout the comfort of other classes of the community. And yet, after\nall, is there not something indecent in their talking about a \"living\nwage\" for the workers? Are they not parasites upon the said workers?\nHave they not, also, had ever so many centuries of dominance? Is it\nnot disgraceful that, at this time of day, there should be any need to\ndiscuss a \"living wage\" for the workers in a _Christian_ civilisation?\nReally, the clericals should not, in this reckless way, invite attention\nto their past sins and present shortcomings. If they stand up for\nthe workers now, it shows that they have not stood up for the workers\nbefore. They have been so many hundreds of years thinking about\nit--or rather _not_ thinking about it. It is _interest_--nothing but\n_interest_--which informs their new policy. They always find out what\n_pays_. Never did they fight a forlorn hope or die for a lost cause.\nAs the shadow follows the sun, so priests follow the sun of prosperity.\nThey are the friends of power, whoever wields it: of wealth, whoever\nowns it. When they talk about the rights of the people, it means that\nthey feel the king-times are ending. Byron said they _would_ end, nearly\na hundred years ago. Blood would flow like water, he said, and tears\nwould fall like rain, but the people would triumph in the end. Yes, and\nthe end is near; the people _are_ triumphing; and the fact is visible to\nthe very owls and bats of theology.\n\nBut let us return to the \"living wage\" business. There were several\nBishops at the Jerusalem Chamber meeting, and in view of their incomes\ntheir patronage of the working man is simply disgusting. Pah! An ounce\nof civet, good apothecary! The bishops smell to heaven. Whatever they\nsay is an insult to the miners--because they say it. The \"living wage\"\nof the poorest bishop would keep fifty miners' families; that of the\nrichest would keep two hundred. \"Nay,\" the bishops say, \"we are poorer\nthan you think.\" Only the other day, the Archbishop of Canterbury stated\nthat most of the bishops spent more than they received. Indeed! Then the\nage of miracles is _not_ past. By what superhuman power do they make\nup the deficiency? We tell the Archbishop that _he lies_. It is not a\npolite answer, we admit, but it is a true one; and this is a case where\ngood plain Saxon is most appropriate. Edward White Benson forgets that\nbishops die. Their wills are proved like the wills of other mortals,\nand the Probate Office keeps the record. Of course it is barely\npossible--that is, it is conceivable--that bishops' executors make false\nreturns, and pay probate duty on fanciful estates; but the probability\nis that they do nothing of the kind. Now some years ago (in 1886) the\nRev. Mercer Davies, formerly chaplain of Westminster Hospital, issued\na pamphlet entitled _The Bishops and their Wealth_, in which he gave a\ntable of the English and Welsh prelates deceased from 1856 to 1885, with\nthe amount of personalty proved at their death. Of one bishop he could\nfind no particulars. It was Samuel Hinds, of Norwich, who resigned as\na disbeliever, and died poor. The thirty-nine others left behind them\ncollectively the sum of \u00a32,105,000; this being \"exclusive of any real\nestate they may have possessed, and exclusive also of any sums invested\nin policies of Life Assurance, or otherwise settled for the benefit\nof their families.\" Divide the amount of their _mere personalty_ by\nthirty-nine, and you have \u00a354,000 apiece. This is how the Bishops spend\nmore than they receive! One of these days we will go to the trouble and\nexpense of bringing the list up to date. Meanwhile it may be noted that\nthere is no falling off in the figures towards 1885. No less than five\nbishops died in that year, and they left the following personalities:\n--\u00a372,000--\u00a385,000--\u00a329,000--\u00a385,000--\u00a319,000; which more than maintain\nthe average.\n\nSo much for the poor bishops. As for the rest of the clergy, it is\nenough to say that the Church they belong to has a total revenue of\nabout \u00a310,000,000 a year. Probably twice that sum is spent on the\nsky-pilots of all denominations, which is more than is received in wages\nby all the miners in Great Britain. It is a fair calculation that the\naverage sky-pilot is six times better paid than the average miner. Yet\nthe latter works hard in the bowels of the earth to provide real\ncoals for real consumers, while the former is occupied in open air and\ndaylight in damping down the imaginary fires of an imaginary hell. It is\neasy to see which is the more useful functionary, just as it is easy to\nsee which is the better paid. Let us hope that the miners, and all other\nworkers, will lay these facts to heart, and act accordingly. There are\ntoo many drones in England, living on the common produce of labor. The\nnumber of them should be diminished, and a beginning should be made with\nthe mystery men. Were the great Black Army disbanded, and turned into\nthe ranks of productive industry, the evils of society would begin to\ndisappear; for those evils are chiefly the result of too much energy and\nattention being devoted to the problematical next life, and too little\nto the real interests of our earthly existence. We should also be spared\nthe wretched spectacle of the well-paid drones of theology maundering\nover the question of a \"living wage\" for the honest men who do the\nlaborious work of the world.\n\n\n\n\nDID BRADLAUGH BACKSLIDE? *\n\n     * November 19, 1893.\n\nThe _Freethinker_ for October 22 contained a bright article by Mr.\nGeorge Standring, giving an account of a Sunday service which he\nattended at the famous Wesley Chapel in the City-road. The preacher on\nthat occasion was the Rev. Allen Rees, and the theme of his discourse\nwas \"The Death of the _National Reformer_\" Amongst other more or less\nquestionable remarks, there was one made by the reverend gentleman,\nwhich the reporter very justly criticised. What was said by Mr. Rees was\nrecorded as follows by Mr. Standring:--\n\n\"Indeed, there was reason to believe that Charles Bradlaugh had himself\nmaterially modified his views before his death, that his Atheism became\nweaker as he grew older. Sir Isaac Holden had told him (Mr. Bees) that\nMr. Bradlaugh had often spoken to him privately in the House of Commons\nupon religious matters, and had admitted that the conversion of his\nbrother had profoundly impressed him. Mr. Bradlaugh had often said to\nSir Isaac Holden that he often wished he were half as good a man as his\nbrother.\"\n\nTo anyone at all acquainted with the relations that existed between Mr.\nBradlaugh and his brother, the last clause of Mr. Rees's statement is\nsufficient to stamp the whole of it as false and absurd. Without going\ninto details, it is enough to say that Mr. Bradlaugh simply _could not_\nspeak of his brother in this manner; it is absolutely beyond the bounds\nof possibility; and, as Sir Isaac Holden is the authority throughout,\nthe entire passage about Mr. Bradlaugh would have to be dismissed with\ncontempt.\n\nMr. Standring sent Mr. Rees a marked copy of the _Freethinker_, and\nintimated that space would probably be afforded him for a correction or\nan explanation. Mrs. Bradlaugh Bonner was also communicated with, and\nshe immediately wrote to Mr. Rees on the subject. The reverend gentleman\nreplied that he had made \"no positive statements\" as to any change of\nview on the part of Mr. Bradlaugh. He had \"nothing to add\" and \"nothing\nto retract.\" But to prevent a misunderstanding he enclosed a verbatim\ncopy of the passage in his sermon to which she referred. It ran as\nfollows:--\n\n\"As a rule, men who profess Atheism do not become stronger in their\nbelief as time goes on. I think I may almost say that this was true of\nMr. Bradlaugh. Sir Isaac Holden has told me that he frequently conversed\nwith Mr. Bradlaugh on religious subjects. The conversion of his brother\ndeeply affected him, and on one occasion he said to him: 'I wish I\nwere half as good as my brother.' It was the unreality of much of the\nChristianity with which in early life Mr. Bradlaugh was associated and\nthe worldliness and uncharitableness of religious professors, which made\nan Atheist of Mr. Bradlaugh, as it has done of many others.\"\n\nThis is a precious sample of clerical logic, composition, and veracity.\nMr. Rees must have been very ignorant of Mr Bradlaugh's writings\nand intellectual character, or else he was deliberately inventing or\ntrusting to mere hearsay, when he stated that Mr. Bradlaugh was made an\nAtheist by the bigotry or selfishness of certain Christians. \"I think\nI may almost say\" is a strange expression. What is it to \"almost say\"\na thing? Is it almost said when you have said it? And what a jumble of\n\"hims\" in the fourth sentence! It would really disgrace a schoolboy.\n\nMrs. Bradlaugh Bonner replied to Mr. Rees, hoping that his \"sense of\nhonor\" would impel him to acknowledge his mistake. She told him that\nher father's convictions never wavered on his death-bed; that Mr. W.\nR. Bradlaugh was never converted, because he was always a\nprofessed Christian; that Sir Isaac Holden must be laboring under a\nmisapprehension; and that if Mr. Rees would call upon her she would tell\nhim the facts which made it \"utterly impossible\" that her father could\nhave spoken of his brother in the way alleged. Mrs. Bonner also wrote\nto Sir Isaac Holden, asking him whether he \"really did tell this to the\nRev. Allen Rees.\" Sir Isaac Holden did not reply. He is a very old man,\nyears older than Mr. Gladstone. This may be an excuse for his manners as\nwell as the infirmity of his memory.\n\nMr. Rees did reply. He said that \"of course\" he could not tell an\nuntruth, that he had \"made no absolute statement,\" that he \"knew he\nhad no positive evidence,\" and that his remark was \"a bare suggestion.\"\nHaving crawled away from his clear responsibility, Mr. Rees gratuitously\ncommitted another offence. \"There was,\" he wrote, \"another remark which\nyour father uttered at the Hall of Science.\" Now this _is_ a \"positive\nstatement.\" And where is the evidence? \"I can give you,\" Mr. Rees added,\n\"the name of the person who heard him say it.\" According to Mr. Rees,\ntherefore, it is only \"a bare suggestion\" when he gives the authority\nof Sir Isaac Holden, but an anonymous authority is a good basis for\na direct, unqualified assertion. And what is the \"remark\" which Mr.\nBradlaugh \"uttered\" (what etymology!)?\n\nIt is this--\"A man twenty-five years old may be an iconoclast, but I\ncannot understand a man being one who has passed middle age.\"\n\nMrs. Bonner took leave to disbelieve (as she well might) that her\nfather had uttered such nonsense. She told Mr. Rees that her father had\nlectured and written as \"Iconoclast\" till he was thirty-five, and only\ndropped the \"fighting name\" then because his own name was so well known.\nShe repeated her assurance that he had never wavered in his Atheism, and\nbegged Mr. Rees to take her father's own written words in preference to\n\"other people's versions of his conversation.\" His _Doubts in Dialogue_,\nthe final paper of which left his hands only three or four days before\nhis last illness, would show what his last views were, and she ventured\nto send Mr. Rees a copy for perusal. Mr. Rees read the volume, and,\ninstead of admitting that he had been mistaken, he had the impertinence\nto tell Mrs. Bonner that her father's book was full of \"sophism\" and the\n\"merest puerilities,\" and ended by expressing his \"simple contempt.\" It\nwas impertinence on Mr. Rees's part, in both senses of the word, for the\nmerit of Mr. Bradlaugh's writing was not the point in consideration.\n\nThe point was this, Did the writing--the _last_ writing--of Mr.\nBradlaugh show the slightest change in his Atheism? Mr. Rees could\nnot see this point, or he would not see it; and either alternative is\ndiscreditable to a man who sets himself up as a public teacher.\n\nMr. Rees did one right thing, however; he sent Mrs. Bonner a letter he\nhad received from Sir Isaac Holden, containing the following passage:--\n\n\"Your rendering of the story is a little different to what I spoke--'Mr.\nBradlaugh was affected to tears when I told him that his brother James\nsaid to the Rev. Richard Allen that his brother Charles was too good a\nman to die an Infidel, and he believed that before his death he would\nbecome a Christian.' Tears started in his (Charles's) eyes, and he\nsimply replied: 'My brother James is a _good fellow_,' not 'I wish\nI were half as good as my brother.' There was evidently a very kind\nfeeling in each of the brothers towards each other.\"\n\nWhat _is_ clear is this--there is a very bad difference between Sir\nIsaac Holden and the Rev. Allen Rees. \"I wish I were half as good as my\nbrother\" is a very definite expression, and not a bit like \"My brother\nJames is a good fellow.\" Now if Sir Isaac Holden _did_ convey this\nexpression to the Rev. Allen Rees, the old gentleman has a treacherous\nmemory; if he _did not_, the expression must be ascribed to the reverend\ngentleman's invention.\n\nMrs. Bonner replied sharply with \"mixed feelings of surprise and\nindignation.\" Her father had no brother named James. The only brother\nhe had was most distinctly not \"a good fellow,\" which there was\n\"documentary evidence\" to prove. There was also documentary evidence\nto show that the feelings of the brothers towards each other was \"the\nreverse of kindly.\" Mr. Rees had chosen to ignore all this, and, in\nconsequence of his attitude, Mrs. Bonner intended to \"give this matter\npublicity\"--which she has done by printing the whole correspondence and\nsending copies to the press.\n\nMr. Rees wrote \"surprised\"--poor man! He thought it was a \"private\ncorrespondence.\" He could not understand why he was \"personally\nabused\"--in fact, it was \"vulgar personal abuse.\" \"I entirely decline,\"\nhe ended majestically, \"to have any further correspondence with you.\"\n\nWhat a sorry display of clerical temper! But it is the way of the\nprofession when tackled. They are so used to speaking from the \"coward's\ncastle,\" _not_ under correction, that they lose their heads when taken\nto task.\n\nMrs. Bonner appends a note to the correspondence, remarking on \"the\nobviously loose reminiscences of Sir Isaac Holden,\" which Mr. Rees\nhad \"materially altered,\" and denying the possibility of any such\nconversation between Sir Isaac Holden and her father.\n\nAs to the private correspondence, surely the conversation (if it\noccurred) was \"of a private nature,\" yet Mr. Rees had no scruple in\nretailing it from the pulpit. Mrs. Bonner adds that her demerits are\nbeside the point, which is, \"Did Mr. Bradlaugh weaken in his Atheism?\"\nto which she answers emphatically \"No.\" She nursed him in his last\nillness, and her testimony is authoritative. Respect for her father's\nmemory justifies her in printing this correspondence, and we are glad\nthat she has done so, for it nails down another wretched fiction to the\ncounter of truth.\n\n\n\n\nFREDERIC HARRISON ON ATHEISM. *\n\n     * January 13,1889.\n\nMr. Frank Harris, the editor of the _Fortnightly Review_, must be a sly\nhumorist. In the current number of his magazine he has published two\narticles as opposite to each other as Balaam's blessing on Israel\nwas opposite to the curse besought by the King of Moab. Mr. Frederic\nHarrison pitches into Agnosticism with his usual vigor, and holds out\nPositivism as the only system which can satisfy the sceptic and the\nreligionist. Mr. W. H. Mallock, on the other hand, makes a trenchant\nattack on Positivism; and the readers of both articles will learn how\nmuch may be said against anything, or at least anything in the shape of\na system. Mr. Herbert Spencer, in the name of the Unknowable, proffers\nhis Agnosticism, and Mr. Harrison says \"Bosh.\" Mr. Harrison, in the name\nof Positivism, proffers his Religion of Humanity, and Mr. Mallock says\n\"Moonshine.\" Mr. Spencer is a man of genius, and Mr. Harrison and Mr.\nMallock are men of remarkable talent. Yet, shuffle them how you will,\nany two of them are ready to damn what the third blesses. What does this\nshow? Why, that systems are all arbitrary, and suited to a certain order\nof minds in a certain stage of development; and that system-mongers are\nlike spiders, who spin their webs out of their own bowels.\n\nMr. Harrison's definition of Agnosticism shows it to be merely Atheism\nin disguise. Milton said that new presbyter was but old priest writ\nlarge, and we may say that the new Agnosticism is but old Atheism\nwritten larger--and more respectably. Agnosticism is the cuckoo of\nphilosophy. It appropriates the nest of another bird, turns it out in\nthe cold, and even adopts its progeny. All the time-honored positions\nof Atheism--man's finity and nature's infinity, the relativity of human\nknowledge, the reign of law, and so forth--are quietly monopolised\nby this intruder, who looks upon the object he has despoiled as the\nChristian looked upon the Jew after borrowing his God. Yet in England,\nthe classic land of mental timidity and compromise, Agnosticism is\nalmost fashionable, while poor Atheism is treated with persecution or\nobloquy. Elsewhere, especially in France, we find a different condition\nof things. A French sceptic no more hesitates to call himself an Atheist\nthan to call himself a Republican. May it not be, therefore, that the\ndifference between Agnosticism and Atheism is one of temperament? We\nmight illustrate this theory by appealing to examples. Darwin was\nan Agnostic, Professor Clifford an Atheist. Or, if we turn to pure\nliterature, we may instance Matthew Arnold and Algernon Swinburne.\nArnold, the Agnostic, says that \"most of what now passes with us for\nreligion and philosophy will be replaced by poetry.\" Swinburne, the\nAtheist, exclaims \"Thou art smitten, thou God, thou art smitten, thy\ndeath is upon thee O Lord.\"\n\nThis brings out the cardinal--we might say the _only_ distinction\nbetween Atheism and Agnosticism. The Agnostic is a timid Atheist, and\nthe Atheist a courageous Agnostic. John Bull is infuriated by the red\ncloak of Atheism, so the Agnostic dons a brown cloak with a red lining.\nNow and then a sudden breeze exposes a bit of the fatal red, but\nthe garment is promptly adjusted, and Bull forgets the irritating\nphenomenon.\n\nMr. Harrison says \"the Agnostic is one who protests against any dogma\nrespecting Creation at all, and who deliberately takes his stand on\nignorance.\" We cannot help saying that this differences him from the\nAtheist. Seeing that we cannot solve infinite problems, that we know\nnothing, and apparently _can_ know nothing, of God or the supernatural,\nthe Atheist has always regarded religious dogmas as blind guesses,\nwhich, according to the laws of chance, are in all probability wrong;\nand as these blind guesses have almost invariably been associated with\nmental tyranny and moral perversion, he has regarded theology as the foe\nof liberty and humanity. The Agnostic, however, usually adopts a more\npleasant attitude. He does not believe in attacking theology; and \"after\nall, you know,\" he sometimes says, \"we can't tell what there may be\nbehind the veil.\"\n\nWith his master, Comte, Mr. Harrison \"entirely accepts the Agnostic\nposition as a matter of logic,\" but it is only a stepping-stone, and he\nobjects to sitting down upon it. Every religion the world has ever seen\nhas been false, but religion itself is imperishable, and Positivism has\nfound the true solution of the eternal problem. Parsons and Agnostics\nwill eventually kiss each other, like righteousness and peace in\nthe text, and the then existing High Priest of Positivism will say,\n\"Humanity bless you, my children.\" But all this is for the sweet\nby-and-bye. Meanwhile the Churches thrust out their tongues at\nPositivism, the great Agnostic philosopher calls it the Ghost of\nReligion, Sir James Stephen declares that nobody can worship Comte's\nmade-up Deity, and Mr. Mallock says that the love of Humanity, taking\nit in the concrete, is as foolish as Titania's affection for Bottom the\nWeaver.\n\nProfessed Atheists may watch this hubbub with serenity, if not with\nenjoyment. When all is said and done, Atheism remains in possession of\nthe sceptical field. Mr. Harrison's flouts, at any rate, will do it no\ndamage. His hatred of Atheism is born of jealousy, and like all jealous\npeople he is somewhat inconsistent. Here he defines Atheism as a\n\"protest against the theological doctrine of a Creator and a moral\nprovidence,\" there he defines it as \"based on the denial of God,\" and\nagain he defines it as a belief that the universe is \"self-existent and\npurely material.\" Even these do not suffice, for he also adopts Comte's\n\"profound aphorism\" that \"Atheism is the most irrational form of\nmetaphysics,\" and proves this by a fresh definition involved in the\ncharge that \"it propounds as the solution of an insoluble enigma the\nhypothesis which of all others is the least capable of proof, the least\nsimple, the least plausible, and the least useful.\" _Of all others_ is\nwhat Cobbett would have called a beastly phrase. It shows Mr. Harrison\nwas in a hurry or a fog. He does not specify this unprovable, complex,\nunplausible, and useless hypothesis. We forbear to guess his meaning,\nbut we remind him that Atheism \"propounds _no_ solution of an insoluble\nenigma.\" The Atheist does not say \"there is no God\"; he simply says, \"I\nknow not,\" and ventures to think others are equally ignorant. Now, this\nwas Comte's own position. He wished to \"reorganise Society, without God\nor King, by the systematic cultus of Humanity,\" and if warning God off\nfrom human affairs is not Atheism, we should like to know what is. Mr.\nHarrison lustily sings the praises of religion, but he is remarkably\nsilent about Comte's opposition to Theism, and in this he is throwing\ndust in the eyes of English readers.\n\nIn \"militant Atheism\" Mr. Harrison says that \"all who have substantive\nbeliefs of their own find nothing but mischief.\" But this is only Mr.\nHarrison's sweeping style of writing. He is always vivid, and nearly\nalways superlative. We venture to think that his \"all\" merely includes\nhis own circle. At the same time, however, we admit that militant\nAtheism is still, as of old, an offence to the superfine sceptics who\ndesire to stand well with the great firm of Bumble and Grundy, as well\nas to the vast army of priests and preachers who have a professional\ninterest in keeping heresy \"dark,\" and to the ruling and privileged\nclasses, who feel that militant Atheism is a great disturber of the\npeace which is founded on popular superstition and injustice.\n\nMr. Harrison seems to imagine that Atheists have no ideal beyond that\nof attacking theology, but a moment's calm reflection would show him the\nabsurdity of this fancy. He might as well suppose that the pioneers of\ncivilisation who hew down virgin forests have no conception of the happy\nhomesteads they are making room for. We go farther and assert that\nall this talk about negative and positive work is _cant_. To call the\ndestroyer of superstition a negationist is as senseless as to call a\ndoctor a negationist. Both strive to expel disease, the one bodily and\nthe other mental. Both, therefore, are working for health, and no more\npositive work is conceivable.\n\n\n\n\nSAVE THE BIBLE! *\n\n     * March 26,1893.\n\nThirty-eight clergymen, a year or two ago, gave the Bible a fresh\ncertificate of inspiration and infallibility. They signed a \"round\nrobin,\" if we may apply such a vulgar description to their holy\ndocument. But somehow the Bible is in as bad a position as ever. It\nseems, indeed, in deadly peril; and if something strong and decisive be\nnot done for its protection, it will soon be doomed. Such, at any\nrate, seems the view of a large number of clergymen, who have signed a\nPetition, prepared by the Rev. E. S. Ffoulkes, of St. Mary's, Oxford,\nand addressed to \"the Most Reverend the Archbishop, and the Right\nReverend the Bishops, of the Church of England, in the House of the\nConvocation of Canterbury assembled.\" The petitioners call upon the\nArchbishops and Bishops to use \"their sacred office and authority,\"\nand either to purge the Church of heresy or to \"authoritatively and\npublicly\" recommend certain \"orthodox and admirable works,\" which are\ncalculated to \"arrest the spread\" of \"disastrous errors in the midst of\nOur Beloved Church.\"\n\nIn order to show the precise nature of these \"disastrous errors,\" we\nprint the following paragraphs from the petition:\n\n\"Whereas it is generally known that certain clergymen of the Church of\nEngland, in positions of influence and authority, are deliberately and\naltogether undermining, by their teachings and public writings, the\nfaith of this Church and country in the trustworthiness of the\nHoly Scriptures, and are altogether repudiating the common faith of\nChristendom, that the said Holy Scriptures, as received by this Church\nof England, are the infallible and inspired Word of God.\n\n\"Also, that by what is known as the 'New Criticism,' these clergymen\ndo attempt entirely to rob the people of God of the Holy Scriptures\nand altogether falsify the teachings respecting them of our Lord Jesus\nChrist and of his Holy Apostles-declaring some parts to be 'myths,' some\n'fables,' some 'the work of dramatists,' etc.\"\n\nAh then, the enemy is within the camp! It is no-longer a question of\n\"infidel\" publications. Church professors, and doctors of divinity,\nare sapping the very foundations of \"the faith.\" Orthodox clergymen cry\nout--in the language of this petition--for salvation from \"the dangers\nof Rationalism and unbelief _within_ the Church.\"\n\nWhat does all this mean? It means that Free-thought is triumphing by the\npermeation of the Churches; that \"advanced\" ministers are now doing, in\na sober, steady, scholarly way, the very work so brilliantly inaugurated\nby Voltaire and Thomas Paine; that the Bible is being subjected to\nrigorous criticism, in England as well as in France, Holland, and\nGermany; that its documents are being shifted like the pieces in a\nkaleidoscope, and every turn of the instrument makes them differ more\nand more from the orthodox pattern. At present, it is true, the process\nis almost confined to the Old Testament. There, however, it is nearly\ncompleted. Presently it will extend in earnest to the New Testament;\nand when it is completed _there_, the Bible will be something worse than\nLuther's \"wax nose,\" it will be a thing of \"shreds and patches.\"\n\nOld Testament criticism by men like Driver, Cheyne, Ryle, and Gore,\nis indeed--as the petitioners assert--destroying faith in \"the Holy\nScriptures\" as the \"infallible and inspired Word o\\c God.\" They still\npretend it is _inspired_, but not infallible. \"Infallible,\" at this time\nof day, is a very \"large order.\" Professor Bruce, himself a Christian\nminister, is obliged to tell his orthodox brethren that \"the errorless\nautograph for which some so zealously contend is a theological figment.\"\n\"The Bible,\" he reminds them, \"was produced piecemeal, and by the time\nthe later portions were produced the earlier had lost their supposed\nimmaculate-ness.\" And he warns the \"infallible\" gentlemen that their\nposition is really \"perilous\" when it is considered \"in what state we\npossess the Scriptures now.\" Yes, it is only country curates who can\nstand up now for an \"infallible\" Word of God; even Mr. Gladstone is\nobliged to admit \"errors\"--that is, errors in general, for he will not\nconfess any in particular.\n\nThe reference in the petition to \"myths,\" \"fables,\" and \"the work of\ndramatists,\" seem to be specially aimed at the Rev. Charles Gore, the\nPrincipal of Pusey House, Oxford, and editor of _Lux Mundi_. His\nessay in that volume on \"The Holy Spirit and Inspiration\" is horribly\ndistasteful to orthodox parsons. They cannot refute him, but they say\n\"he ought to know better,\" or \"he shouldn't write such things\"--in other\nwords, he is guilty of the shocking crime of letting the cat out of\nthe bag. He discards the Creation Story, just like Professor Bruce,\nwho calls the fall of Adam a \"quaint\" embodiment of the theological\nconception of sin. He dismisses all the patriarchs before Abraham as\n\"mythical.\" He admits the late origin of the Pentateuch, and only claims\nfor Moses the probable authorship of the Decalogue. He says the Song\nof Solomon is \"of the nature of a drama.\" The Book of Job is \"mainly\ndramatic.\" Deuteronomy is the publication of the law \"put dramatically\"\ninto the mouth of Moses. Jonah and Daniel are \"dramatic compositions.\"\nJesus Christ, it is true, cited both as historical; but he only\n\"accommodated\" himself to the prevalent belief. He knew better, but he\ndid not choose to say so; or, rather, the moment was inopportune; so he\nleft us to find out the truth in this matter, as he left us to find it\nout in everything else.\n\nCanon Driver is perhaps glanced at in \"fables,\" and perhaps also Canon\nCheyne. The former has publicly argued against the \"reconciliations\" of\nGenesis and Science. He has likewise written very strongly against the\n\"historical\" character of Jonah, which he treats as a story with \"a\nmoral.\" Canon Cheyne regards it as \"an allegory.\" Jonah is Israel,\nswallowed up by Babylon; but, seeking the Lord in exile, the captive is\nat last disgorged uninjured.\n\nThese clerical apostles of the \"New Criticism\" are accused of attempting\n\"entirely to rob the people of God of the Holy Scriptures.\" Poor people\nof God! How anxious the petitioners are for their welfare! Some persons,\nhowever, will be apt to regard the solicitude of these gentlemen as\n_professional_. Robbing the people of the Holy Scriptures, in _their_\nmouths, may simply mean rendering the clergyman's trade more difficult,\nor perhaps altogether impossible; and therefore the bitter cry of\nthese \"grievously beset\" parsons (to use their own words) may be only a\nparallel to the famous old shout of \"Great is Diana of the Ephesians.\"\n\nWhy indeed do not the petitioners refute the apostles of the \"New\nCriticism,\" instead of appealing to the _authority_ of Convocation?\nThey plainly declare that the \"New Criticis\" rests on \"utterly baseless\nfoundations\"--which is a curious pleonasm or tautology for a body of\n\"educated\" gentlemen. But if the substance of the declaration be true,\napart from its logic or grammar, the orthodox parsons may scatter the\nheretical parsons like chaff before the wind. Principles which are\n\"utterly baseless\" may surely be refuted. To quote from Hamlet, \"it is\nas easy as lying.\" Now that is a practice in which the clergy of all\nages have shown great dexterity. We therefore hope the orthodox parsons\nwill _refute_ the \"New Criticism.\" Let them try to save the Bible by\nargument. If they cannot it is lost, and lost for ever.\n\n\n\n\nFORGIVE AND FORGET. *\n\n     * March 19, 1893. Written after a debate at the Hall of\n     Science, London, between the writer and the Rev. C. Fleming\n     Williams, on \"Christian Ideas of Man and Methods of\n     Progress.\" Mr. Branch, of the London County Council,\n     presided, and there was a very large attendance.\n\nMy recent friendly discussion with the Rev. C. Fleming Williams was\nmost enjoyable. It is so-pleasant to debate points of difference with\nan opponent whom you fully respect, towards whom you have not an atom of\nill feeling, and to whom you disclose your own views in exchange for\nthe confidence of his. The chairman said that he had visited the Hall of\nScience many years ago, and frequently heard discussions, but they were\ngenerally acrimonious, and seldom profitable. No doubt he spoke what he\nfelt to be the truth; at the same time, however, he probably left out\nof sight a very important factor, namely, the tone and temper which\nChristian critics are apt to display on a Secular platform; the\nassumed superiority, which is not justified by any apparent gifts\nof intelligence; the implication in most of their remarks that the\nFreethinker is on a lower moral level than they are, though it would\nnever be suspected by an indifferent observer; the arrogance which is\noften the undercurrent of their speech, and sometimes bursts forth into\nsheer, undisguised insolence. Christian critics of this species have,\nperhaps, stung Freethought lecturers into hot resentment, when it would\nhave been far preferable to keep cool, and continue using the rapier\ninstead of seizing the bludgeon. It is always a mistake to lose one's\ntemper, but it becomes excusable (although not justifiable) under\nintense provocation. On the whole, it is safe to say that Christians\nhave received more courtesy than they have shown in their controversies\nwith Freethinkers.\n\nSo much for the debate itself. What I want to deal with in this article\nis the plea of the chairman, and also of Mr. Williams, for a more\ncharitable understanding. Christians have abused, ill-treated, and even\nbutchered Freethinkers in the past, but the best Christians are ashamed\nof it now. Let us then, it is urged, bury the past; let us forgive and\nforget.\n\nSo far as it concerns _men_ only I am not insensible to the appeal. Far\nbe it from me to blame Mr. Williams for the follies and malignancies\nof his Christian predecessors. On a question of character, of merit or\ndemerit, every man stands or falls alone. Imputed wickedness is just as\nirrational as imputed righteousness. I no more wish to make Mr. Williams\nresponsible for the butcheries of a Torquemada or an Alva than I wish\nto be saved by the sufferings of Jesus Christ. So far as Mr. Williams\nis concerned, I have no past to bury. I am not aware that he has ever\ndesired anything but absolute justice for all forms of opinion; and\nI know that he denounced my imprisonment for the artificial crime of\n\"blasphemy.\" Evidently, then, Mr. Williams' plea is more than personal.\nIt is really a request that I should judge Christianity, as a great,\nancient, historic system, not by what it has in the main taught and\ndone, but by what a select body of its professors say and do in the\npresent generation.\n\nNow this is a plea which I must reject. In the first place, while I\nadmit it is unfair to judge Christianity by its _worst_ specimens,\nI regard it as no less unfair to judge it by its _best_. This is not\njustice and impartiality. The Chief Constable of Hull* is probably as\nsincere a Christian as Mr. Williams. I have to meet them both, and I\nmust take them as I find them. The one pays me a compliment, and the\nother threatens me with a prosecution; one shakes me cordially by the\nhand, the other tries to prevent me from lecturing. The difference\nbetween them is flagrant. But how am I to put Mr. Williams to the credit\nof Christianity, and Captain Gurney to the credit of something else?\nWhat _is_ the something else? They both speak to me as Christians; is it\nfor me to say that the one is a Christian and the other is not? Is not\nthat a domestic question for the Christians to settle among themselves?\nAnd am I not just and reasonable in declining to take the decision out\nof their hands?\n\n     * This gentleman was trying to prevent me from delivering\n     Sunday lectures at Hull under the usual condition of a\n     charge for admission.\n\nIn the next place, since Christianity is, as I have said, not only a\ngreat, but an ancient and historic system, its past _cannot_ be buried,\nand should not be if it could. History is philosophy teaching us by\nexample. Without it the present is meaningless, and the future an\nobscurity. Now history shows us that Christianity has been steady and\nrelentless in the persecution of heresy. We have therefore to inquire\nthe reason. It will not do to say that persecution is natural to\nhuman pride in face of opposition; for Buddhism, which is older than\nChristianity, has not been guilty of a single act of persecution in the\ncourse of twenty-four centuries. Another explanation is necessary. And\nwhat is it? When we look into the matter we find that persecution\nhas always been justified, nay inculcated, by appealing to Christian\ndoctrines and the very language of Scripture. Unbelief was treason\nagainst God, and the rejection of Christ was rebellion. They were more\nthan operations of the intellect; they were movements of the will--not\nmistaken, but satanic. And as faith was essential to salvation, and\nheresy led straight to hell, the elimination of the heretic was in the\ninterest of the people he might divert from the road to paradise. It was\nsimply an act of social sanitation.\n\nI am aware that this conception is not paraded by \"advanced\" Christians,\nthough they seldom renounce it in decisive language. But these\n\"advanced\" Christians are the children of a later age, full of\nintellectual and moral influences which are foreign to, or at least\nindependent of, Christianity. Their attitude is the resultant of several\nforces. But suppose a time of reaction came, and the influences I\nhave referred to should diminish for a season; is it not probable,\nnay certain, that the old forces of Christian exclusiveness and\ninfallibility, based upon a divine revelation, would once more produce\nthe effects-which cursed and degraded Europe for over a thousand years?\nSuch, at any rate, is my belief; it is also, I think, the belief of most\nFreethinkers; and this is the reason why we cannot forgive and forget.\nThe serpent is scotched, not slain; and we must beware of its fangs.\n\n\n\n\nTHE STAR OF BETHLEHEM.\n\nMatthew, or whoever was the author of the first Gospel, had a rare\neye (or nose) for portents and prodigies. He seems also to have had\nexclusive sources of information. Several of the wonderful things he\nrelates were quite unknown to the other evangelists. They were ignorant\nof the wholesale resurrection of saints at the crucifixion, and also\nof the watch at the sepulchre, with all the pretty circumstantial story\ndepending upon it. At the other end of Christ's career they never heard\nof the visit of the wise men of the east to his cradle, or of Herod's\nmassacre of the innocents, or of the star which guided those wise men\nto the birthplace of the little king of the Jews. That star is the sole\nproperty of Matthew, and the other evangelists took care not to infringe\nhis copyright. Indeed, it is surprising how well they did with the\nremnants he left them.\n\nMatthew was not a Jules Verne. He had no knowledge of astronomy.\nConsequently he did not make the most of that travelling star. It\nwas seen by wise men \"in the east.\" This is not very exact, but it is\nprecise enough for a fairy tale. Those wise men happened to be \"in the\neast\" at the same time. They were really \"Magi\"--as may be seen in the\nRevised Version; that is, priests of the religion of Persia; and it\nrequires a lot of faith to see what concern they could possibly have\nwith the bantling of Bethlehem. However, they saw \"his star,\" and they\nappear to have followed it. They must have slept by day and journeyed\nby night, when the star was visible. At the end of their expedition this\nstar \"stood over\" the house where little Jesus was lying. Truly, it was\na very accommodating star. Of course it was specially provided for\nthe occasion. Real stars, rolling afar in the infinite ether, are too\ndistant to \"stand over\" a particular spot on this planet This was an\nideal star. It travelled through the earth's atmosphere, and moved\naccording to the requirements of the gospel Munchausen. What became\nof it afterwards we are not informed. Probably it was born and died in\nMatthew's imagination. He blew it out when he had done with it, and thus\nit has escaped the attention of Sir Robert Ball.\n\nThose star-gazing magi went into \"the house,\" which, according to Luke,\nwas an inn; Jesus Christ having been born in the stable, because the\n\"pub\" was full, and no gentleman would go outside to oblige a lady: They\nopened their Gladstone bags, and displayed the presents they had brought\nfor the little king of the Jews. These were gold, frankincense, and\nmyrrh. No doubt the perfumes were very welcome--in a stable; and very\nlikely Joseph took care of the gold till Jesus was old enough to spend\nit on his own account, by which time it appears to have vanished,\nperhaps owing to the expenses of bringing up the numerous progeny of the\nVirgin Mother. Then the Mahatmas--we beg pardon, the Magi--went home.\nPerhaps they are there still. But no matter. We leave that to the\nChristian Evidence Society, or the Theosophists.\n\nCandid students will see at a glance that the whole of this story is\nmythological. Like other distinguished persons, the Prophet of Nazareth\nhad to make a fuss, not only in the world, but in the universe; and his\nbiographers (especially Matthew) duly provided him with extraordinary\nincidents. Not only was he born, like so many other \"saviors,\" without\nthe assistance of a human father, but his birth was heralded by a\ncelestial marvel. There was a star of his nativity. The wise men from\nthe east called it \"his star.\" This puts him in the category of heroes,\nand bars the idea of his being a god. It also shows that the Christians,\namongst whom this story originated, were devotees of astrology.\nFortune-tellers still decide your \"nativity\" before they cast your\n\"horoscope.\" We are aware that many commentators have discussed the star\nof Christ's birth from various points of view. Some have thought it\na real star; others have had enough astronomy to see that this was\nimpossible, and have argued that it was a big will-o'-the-wisp, created\nand directed by supernatural power, like the pillar of day-cloud and\nnight-fire that led the Jews in the wilderness; while still others have\nfavored the idea of a supernatural illusion, which was confined to the\nwise men--and thus it was that the \"star\" was not seen or mentioned by\nany of their contemporaries. But all this is the usual mixture of Bible\ncommentators. There is really no need to waste time in that fashion. The\nStar of Bethlehem belongs to the realm of poetry, as much as the Star of\nCaesar, to which the mighty Julius ascended in his apotheosis.\n\nThousands of sermons have been preached on that Star of Bethlehem,\nand these also have been works of imagination. We have been told, for\ninstance, that it was the morning star of a new day for humanity.\nBut this is a falsehood, which the clergy palmed off on ignorant\ncongregations. The world was happier under the government of the great\nPagan emperors than it has ever been under the dominion of Christianity.\nFor a thousand years the triumph of the Cross was the annihilation of\neverything that makes life pleasant and dignified. The Star of Bethlehem\nshone in a sky of utter blackness. All the constellations of science,\nart, philosophy, and literature were in disastrous eclipse. Cruelty and\nhypocrisy abounded on earth, toil and misery were the lot of the people,\nand bloodshed was as common as rain.\n\nReligions, said Schopenhauer, are like glow-worms; they require darkness\nto shine in. This was quite true of Christianity. It was splendid when\nit had no competitor. To be visible--above all, to be worshipped--it\nneeded the sky to itself.\n\nOne by one, during the past three hundred years, the stars of\ncivilisation have emerged from their long eclipse, and now the sky of\nhumanity is full of countless hosts of throbbing glories. The Star of\nBethlehem is no longer even a star of the first magnitude. It pales and\ndwindles every year. In another century it will be a very minor light.\nMeanwhile it is drawn big on the maps of faith. But that little trick\nis being seen through. Once it was the Star of Bethlehem first, and\nthe rest nowhere; now it takes millions of money, and endless special\npleading, to keep its name on the list.\n\nChrist himself is coming more and more to be regarded as a fanciful\nfigure; not God, not even a man, but a construction of early Christian\nimagination. \"Why,\" asked a Unitarian of a Positivist, \"why is not\nChrist in your Positivist calendar?\" \"Because,\" was the reply, \"the\ncalendar is for men, not for gods.\"\n\n\n\n\nTHE GREAT GHOSTS *\n\n     * March, 1889.\n\nLong before there were any kings there were chiefs, Even in the\nearly Feudal days the king was only the chief of the barons, and many\ncenturies elapsed before the supremacy of the monarch was unquestioned\nand he became really the _sovereign_. It was a process of natural\nselection. A mob of chiefs could not rule a mob of people. There was a\nfierce struggle, with plenty of fighting and intrigue, and the fittest\nsurvived. Gradually, as the nation became unified, the government\nwas centralised, and out of the chaos of competing nobles emerged the\nrelatively cosmic authority of the Crown.\n\nSimilarly in the world of religion. All gods were originally ghosts. But\nas polytheism declined a supreme god emerged from the crowd of deities,\nas the king emerged from the crowd of nobles, and ruled from a definite\ncentre. It was Zeus in Greece, Jupiter in Rome, Brahma in India, Thor\nin Scandinavia, and Yahveh in Israel. \"I, the Lord thy God, am a jealous\nGod,\" was an exclamation that sprang from Yahveh's lips (through his\npriests) when his godship was still in the thick of the competitive\nstruggle.\n\nThe ghosts become gods, and the gods become supreme deities, looked\nafter the interests of their worshippers; gave them long life, good\nharvests, and prosperity in warfare, if they were true to them, and\nplagued them like the very devil if they slighted them or nodded to\ntheir rivals. According to the Old Testament, when everything went well\nwith the Jews their God was pleased, and when things went wrong with\nthem he was angry. This state of mind survives into our advanced\ncivilisation, where people still talk of \"judgments,\" still pray for\ngood things, and still implore their God for victory when they have a\nscrimmage with their neighbors.\n\nBut this infantile conception is dying out of educated minds. Prayer is\nseen to be futile. The laws of nature do not vary. Providence is on the\nside of the big battalions. God helps those who help themselves--and no\none else.\n\nLong ago, in ancient Greece and Rome, the acutest thinkers had come to\nthe same conclusion. Lucretius, for instance, did not deny the existence\nof the gods; he merely asserted that they no longer concerned themselves\nwith human affairs, which he was heartily glad of, as they were mostly\nbad characters. He observed \"the reign of law\" as clearly as our modern\nscientists, and relegated the deities to their Olympian repose, so\nbeautifully versed by Tennyson.\n\n              The Gods, who haunt\n     The lucid interspace of world and world,\n     Where never creeps a cloud, or moves a wind,\n     Nor ever falls the least white star of snow,\n     Nor ever lowest roll of thunder moans,\n     Nor sound of human sorrow mounts to mar\n     Their savored everlasting calm.\n\nEven the savage, in times of prolonged peace and prosperity, begins to\nspeculate on the possibility of his god's having retired from business;\nfor religion is born of fear, not of love, and the savage is reminded of\nhis god by calamity rather than good fortune. This idea has been caught\nby Robert Browning in his marvellous _Caliban upon Setebos_, a poem\ndeveloped out of a casual germ in Shakespeare's _Tempest_.\n\n     Hoping the while, since evils sometimes mend,\n     Warts rub away and sores are cured with slime,\n     That some strange day, will either the Quiet catch\n     And conquer Setebos, or likelier He\n     Decrepit may doze, doze, as good as die.\n\nBut presently poor Caliban is frightened out of his speculation by a\nthunderstorm, which makes him lie low and slaver his god, offering any\nmortification as the price of his escape.\n\nThere is a good deal of Caliban in our modern multitudes, but the\neducated are working free from his theology. Science and miracle cannot\nlive together, and miracle and providence are the same thing. How far\nfrom us is the good old God of the best parts of the Bible, who held out\none ear for the prayers of his good children, and one hand, well rodded,\nfor the backs of the naughty ones. The seed of the righteous never\nbegged for bread, and the villain always came to a bad end. It was the\nchildish philosophy of the \"gods\" in a modern theatre. The more critical\nwant something truer and more natural, something more accordant with the\nstern realities of life. Renan has some excellent remarks on this in the\nPreface to his second volume of the _Histoire du Peuple d' Israel_.\n\n\"The work of the genius of Israel was not really affected until the\neighteenth century after Jesus Christ, when it became very doubtful to\nspirits a little cultivated that the affairs of this world are regulated\nby a God of justice. The exaggerated idea of a special Providence, the\nbasis of Judaism and Islam, and which Christianity has only corrected\nthrough the fund of liberalism inherent in our races, has been\ndefinitively vanquished by modern philosophy, the fruit not of abstract\nspeculation, but of constant experience. It has never been observed,\nin effect, that a superior being occupies himself, for a moral or an\nimmoral purpose, with the affairs of nature or the affairs of humanity.\"\n\nKenan has elsewhere said that the negation of the supernatural is a\ndogma with every cultivated intelligence. God, in short, has faded into\na metaphysical abstraction. The little ghosts vanished long ago, and now\nthe Great Ghost is melting into thin air. Thousands of people have lost\nall belief in his existence. They use his name, and take it in vain; for\nwhen questioned, they merely stand up for \"a sort of a something.\" The\nfear of God, so to speak, has survived his personality; just as Madame\nde Stael said she did not believe in ghosts, but she was afraid of them.\nMrs. Browning gives voice to this sentiment in one of her poems:\n\n     And hearts say, God be pitiful,\n     That ne'er said, God be blest.\n\nThe fear of the Lord is, indeed, the beginning and the end of theology.\n\nWhen the Great Ghost was a reality--we mean to his worshippers--he was\nconstantly spoken of. His name was invoked in the courts of law, it\nfigured in nearly every oath outside them, and it was to be seen on\nnearly every page of every book that was published. But all that is\nchanged. To speak or print the name of God is reckoned \"bad form.\" The\nword is almost tabooed in decent society. You hear it in the streets,\nhowever, when the irascible carman calls on God to damn your eyes for\ngetting in his way. There is such a conspiracy of silence about the\nGreat Ghost, except in churches and chapels, that the mention of his\nname in polite circles sounds like swearing. Eyebrows are lifted, and\nthe speaker is looked upon as vulgar, and perhaps dangerous.\n\nThus theology gives way to the pressure of science, and religion to the\npressure of civilisation. The more use we make of this life the less we\nlook for another; the loftier man grows the less he bows to ghosts and\ngods. Heaven and hell both disappear, and things are neither so bad nor\ngood as was expected. Man finds himself in a universe of necessity.\nHe hears no response to his prayers but the echo of his own voice. He\ntherefore bids the gods adieu, and sets himself to the task of making\nthe best of life for himself and his fellows. Without false hopes, or\nbare fears, he steers his course over the ocean of life, and says with\nthe poet, \"I am the captain of my soul.\"\n\n\n\n\nATHEISM AND THE FRENCH REVOLUTION. *\n\n     * July, 1889.\n\nSunday, July 14, is the hundredth anniversary of the fall of the\nBastille, and the occasion will be splendidly celebrated at Paris.\nIn itself the capture of this prison-fortress by the people was not a\nwonderful achievement; it was ill-defended, and its governor might, had\nhe chosen, have exploded the powder magazine and blown it sky-high. But\nthe event was the parting of the ways. It showed that the multitude had\ngot the bit between its teeth, and needed a more potent master than the\npoor king at Versailles. And the event itself was a striking one. Men\nare led by imagination, and the Bastille was the symbol of centuries\nof oppression. Within its gloomy dungeons hundreds of innocent men had\nperished in solitary misery, without indictment or trial, consigned to\ndeath-in-life by the arbitrary order of irresponsible power. Men of the\nmost eminent intellect and character had suffered within its precincts\nfor the crime of teaching new truth or exposing old superstitions.\nVoltaire himself had twice tasted imprisonment there. What wonder, then,\nthat the people fixed their gaze upon it on that ominous fourteenth of\nJuly, and attacked it as the very citadel of tyranny? The Bastille fell,\nand the sound re-echoed through Europe. It was the signal of a new era\nand a new hope. The Revolution had begun--that mighty movement which, in\nits meaning and consequences, dwarfs every other cataclysm in history.\n\nBut revolutions do not happen miraculously. Their advent is prepared.\nThey are as much _caused_ as the fall of a ripe apple from the tree,\nor the regular bursting of the buds in spring. The authors of the\nRevolution were in their graves. Its leaders, or its instruments,\nappeared upon the scene in '89. After life's fitful fever Voltaire was\nsleeping well. Rousseau's tortured heart was at rest. Diderot's colossal\nlabors were ended; his epitaph was written, and the great Encyclopaedia\nremained as his living monument. D'Holbach had just joined his friends\nin their eternal repose. A host of smaller men, also, but admirable\nsoldiers of progress in their degree, had passed away. The gallant host\nhad done its work. The ground was ploughed, the seed was sown, and the\nharvest was sure. Famished as they were, and well-nigh desperate at\ntimes, the men of the Revolution nursed the crop as a sacred legacy,\nshedding their blood like water to fructify the soil in which it grew.\n\nSuperficial readers are ignorant of the mental ferment which went on in\nFrance before the Revolution. Voltaire's policy of sapping the dogmas by\nwhich all tyranny was supported had been carried out unflinchingly.\nNot only had Christianity been attacked in every conceivable way, with\nscience, scholarship, argument, and wit; but the very foundations of\nall religion--the belief in soul and God--had not been spared. The\nHeresiarch of Ferney lived to see the war with superstition carried\nfarther than he contemplated or desired; but it was impossible for\nhim to say to the tide of Freethought, \"Thus far shalt thou go and no\nfarther, and here shall thy proud waves be stayed.\" The tide poured on\nover everything sacred. Altars, thrones, and coronets met with a common\nfate. True, they were afterwards fished out of the deluge; but their\nglory was for ever quenched, their power for ever gone.\n\nAmong the great Atheists who prepared the Revolution we single out\ntwo--Diderot and D'Holbach. The sagacious mind of Comte perceived that\nDiderot was the greatest _thinker_ of the band. The fecundity of his\nmind was extraordinary, and even more so his scientific prescience.\nAnyone who looks through the twenty volumes of his collected works will\nbe astonished at the way in which, by intuitive insight, he anticipated\nso many of the best ideas of Evolution. His labors on the Encyclopaedia\nwould have tired out the energies of twenty smaller men, but he\npersevered to the end, despite printers, priests, and governments, and a\ncountless host of other obstructions. Out of date as the work is now, it\nwas the artillery of the movement of progress then. As Mr. Morley says,\nit \"rallied all that was best in France round the standard of light and\nsocial hope.\"\n\nLess original, but nearly as bold and industrious, D'Holbach placed his\nfortune and abilities at the service of Freethought. Mr. Morley calls\nthe _System of Nature_ \"a thunderous engine of revolt.\" It was Atheistic\nin religion, and revolutionary in politics. It challenged every enemy of\nfreedom in the name of reason and humanity. Here and there its somewhat\ndiffuse rhetoric was lit up with the splendidly concise eloquence of\nDiderot, who touched the work with a master-hand. Nor did this powerful\nbook represent a tithe of D'Holbach's labors for the \"good old cause.\"\nHis active pen produced a score of other works, under various names\nand disguises, all addressed to the same object--the destruction\nof superstition and the emancipation of the human mind. They were\nextensively circulated, and must have created a powerful impression on\nthe reading public.\n\nLeaving its authors and precursors, and coming to the Revolution itself,\nwe find that its most distinguished figures were Atheists. Mirabeau,\nthe first Titan of the struggle, was a godless statesman. In him the\nmultitude found a master, who ruled it by his genius and eloquence,\nand his embodiment of its aspirations. The crowned king of France was\npottering in his palace, but the real king reigned in the National\nAssembly.\n\nThe Girondists were nearly all Atheists, from Condorcet and Madame\nRoland down to the obscurest victims of the Terror who went gaily to\ntheir doom with the hymn of freedom upon their proud lips. Danton also,\nthe second Titan of the Revolution, was an Atheist. He fell in trying\nto stop the bloodshed, which Robespierre, the Deist, continued until it\ndrowned him. With Danton there went to the guillotine another Atheist,\nbright, witty Camille Desmoulins, whose exquisite pen had served the\ncause well, and whose warm poet's blood was destined to gush out under\nthe fatal knife. Other names crowd upon us, too numerous to recite.\nTo give them all would be to write a catalogue of the revolutionary\nleaders.\n\nAtheism was the very spirit of the Revolution. This has been admitted\nby Christian writers, who have sought revenge by libelling the movement.\nTheir slanders are manifold, but we select two which are found most\nimpressive at orthodox meetings.\n\nIt is stated that the Revolutionists organised a worship of the Goddess\nof Reason, that they went in procession to Notre Dame, where a naked\nwoman acted the part of the goddess, while Chenier's _Ode_ was chanted\nby the Convention. Now there is a good deal of smoke in this story and\nvery little flame. The naked female is a pious invention, and that being\ngone, the calumny is robbed of its sting. Demoiselle Candeille,\nan actress, was selected for her beauty; but she was not a \"harlot,\" and\nshe was not undressed. Whoever turns to such an accessible account as\nCarlyle's will see that the apologists of Christianity have utterly\nmisrepresented the scene.\n\nSecondly, it is asserted that the Revolution was a tornado of murder;\ncruelty was let loose, and the Atheists waded in blood. Never was\ngreater nonsense paraded with a serious face. During the Terror itself\nthe total number of victims, as proved by the official records, was\nless than three thousand; not a tenth part of the number who fell in the\nsingle massacre of St. Bartholomew!\n\nBut who caused the Terror? The Christian monarchies that declared war\non Freethinkers and regicides. Theirs was the guilt, and they are\nresponsible for the bloodshed. France trembled for a moment. She aimed\nat the traitors within her borders, and struck down many a gallant\nfriend in error. But she recovered from the panic. Then her sons,\nhalf-starved, ragged, shoeless, ill-armed, marched to the frontier,\nhurled back her enemies, and swept the trained armies of Europe into\nflight. They _would_ be free, and who should say them nay? They were not\nto be terrified or deluded by \"the blood on the hands of the king or the\nlie at the lips of the priest.\" And if the struggle developed until the\nFrench armies, exchanging defence for conquest, thundered over Europe,\nfrom the Baltic to the Mediterranean, from the orange-groves of Spain\nto the frozen snows of Russia--the whole blame rests with the pious\nscoundrels who would not let France establish a Republic in peace.\n\n\n\n\nPIGOTTISM. *\n\n     * March, 1889.\n\n     \"_Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is\n     new? it hath been already of old times, which was before\n     us._\"--Ecclesiastes i. 10.\n\nEverybody is talking about the flight of Pigott. The flight into\nEgypt never caused half such a sensation. Pigott has gone off into the\ninfinite. He was shadowed, but he has performed the feat of running away\nfrom his own shadow. Where he will turn up next, or if he will turn\nup anywhere, God only knows. But wherever he re-appears--in the South\nPacific as a missionary, in America as a revivalist, or in India as an\navatar--it will be the same old Pigott, lying, shuffling, forging and\nblackmailing, with an air of virtue and benevolence.\n\nThe edifice of calumny on Mr. Parnell and his closest colleagues rested\non the foundation of Pigott, and Pigott is exploded. He has entirely\nvanished. Not a hair of him is visible. He is gone like last winter's\nsnow or last summer's roses. He is in the big list of things Wanted. But\nadvertisements will not bring him back, and considering who is in power,\nit is very problematical if the officers of justice will be any more\nsuccessful.\n\nWe have no wish to be disrespectful to the Commission, and it is\nfar from our intention to pronounce judgment on a case which is _sub\njudice_, though who can help sundry exclamations when the chief witness\non one side bolts, leaving no trace but a few more lies and counter\nlies? Our object, indeed, is not political but religious. We desire\nto make the noble Pigott point a moral and adorn a tale. He and his\nachievements in connection with the _Times_ splendidly illustrate the\nprocess by which Christianity was built up. Pigottism was at work for\ncenturies, forging documents, manufacturing evidence, and telling the\ngrossest lies with an air of truth. What is still worse, Pigottism was\nso lucky as to get into the seat of despotic power, and to crush out all\ncriticism of its frauds; so that, at length, everyone believed what\nno one heard questioned. It was Pigottism in excelsis. The liar gave\nevidence in the witness box, stifled or murdered the counsel for the\nopposite side, then mounted the bench to give judgment in his own favor,\nand finally pronounced a decree of death against all who refused to own\nhim the pink of veracity.\n\nJust look for a moment at these Parnell letters. They were printed\nin facsimile in the _Times_, published in _Parnellism and Crime_,\ncirculated among millions of people, and accepted as genuine by half\nthe population of England. And on what ground? Solely on the ground that\nParnellism was heterodox and the _Times_ was a respectable journal.\nThat was enough. The laws of evidence were treated with contempt.\nInvestigation was thought unnecessary. Thousands of people fatuously\nsaid, \"Oh, the letters are in print.\" And all this in an age of Board\nschools, printing presses, daily papers, and unlimited discussion; nay,\nin despite of the solemn declaration of Mr. Parnell and his colleagues,\nbacked up by a demand for investigation, that the letters were absolute\nconcoctions.\n\nNow if such things can happen in an age like this, how easily could they\nhappen in ages like those in which Christianity produced its scriptures.\nCredulity was boundless, fraud was audacious, and lying for the profit\nof the Church was regarded as a virtue. There was no printing press, no\nfree inquiry, no keen investigation, no vivid conception of the laws of\nevidence; and the few brilliant critics, like Celsus and Porphyry, who\nkept alive in their breasts the nobler spirit of Grecian scepticism,\nwere answered by the destruction of their writings, a process which was\ncarried out with the cunning scent of a sleuth-hound and the remorseless\ncruelty of a tiger.\n\nThe Church produced, quite as mysteriously as the _Times_, certain\ndocuments which it said were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, John,\nPeter, Paul, and James. Others were written by Pagans like Pilate, and\none at least by Jesus Christ himself. No commission sat to examine and\ninvestigate, no Sir Charles Russell cross-examined the witnesses.\nThe Pigotts, the Houstons, and the Macdonalds kept quietly in the\nbackground, and were never dragged forth into the light of day. The Mr.\nWalters took the full responsibility, which was very trifling; and\nas Englishmen relied on the respectability of the _Times_, so the\nilliterate and fanatical Christians relied on the respectability of the\nMother Church.\n\nSome of those documents, so mysteriously produced, were as mysteriously\ndropped when they had served their turn. Hence the so-called Apocryphal\nNew Testament, a collection of writings as ancient, and once as\naccepted, as those found in the Canon. Hence also the relics, either in\nname or in fragments, of a host of gospels, epistles, and revelations,\nwhich primitive Pigottism manufactured for the behoof of Christianity,\nEvery single scrap no doubt subserved a useful end. But whatever was no\nlonger required was discarded like the scaffolding of a house. The real,\npermanent work, all the while, was going on inside; and when the Church\nfaced the world with its completed edifice, it thought itself provided\nwith something that would stand all winds and weathers. It was found,\nhowever, in the course of time, that Pigottism was still necessary.\nHence the Apostolic Constitutions, the Decretals, the Apostles' and the\nAthanasian Creeds, and all the profitable relics of saints and martyrs.\n\nAbout two hundred years ago an informal Commission began to sit on these\nChristian documents. The precious letter of Jesus Christ to Abgarus\nsoon flew off with the Veronica handkerchief, and many other products\nof Christian Pigottism shared the same fate. The witnesses were examined\nand cross-examined, and the longer the process lasted the sorrier was\nthe spectacle they presented. Paul's epistles have been shockingly\nhandled. The Commission has positively declared that all but four of\nthem are forgeries, and is still investigating the claim of the remnant\nunder reprieve. Nor is the judgment on the gospels less decisive. The\nCourt has decided that they were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and\nJohn. Who wrote them, when they were written, or where, is left to the\nDay of Judgment.\n\nUnfortunately the press has given little attention to the proceedings in\nthis Court of Commission. Its reports are published in expensive volumes\nfor scholars and gentlemen of means and leisure. Some of the results,\nindeed, are given in a few journals written for the people; but these\njournals are boycotted as vulgar, unless they go too far, when they are\nprosecuted for blasphemy. Yet the truth is gradually leaking out. People\nshake their heads ominously, especially when there is anything in them;\nand parsons are looked upon with a growing suspicion. They look\nbland, they assume the most virtuous airs, and sometimes they affect a\npreternatural goodness. But in all this they are excelled by the noble\nPigott, whose bald head, venerable beard, and benevolent appearance,\nqualified him to sit for a portrait of God the Father. Gentlemen, it\nwon't do. You will have to bolt or confess. The documents you have\npalmed off on the world are the products of unadulterated Pigottism. You\nknow it, we know it, and by and bye everyone will know it.\n\n\n\n\nJESUS AT THE DERBY. *\n\n     * June, 1890.\n\nThis is the age of advertisement. Look at the street-hoardings, look at\nthe newspapers, look at our actor-managers, look at Barnum. Scream from\nthe housetops or you stand no chance. If you cannot attract attention\nin any other way, stand on your head. Get talked about somehow. The only\nhell is obscurity, and notoriety is the seventh heaven. If you cannot\nmake a fortune, spend one. Run through a quarter of a million in three\nyears, be the fool of every knave, and though you are as commonplace as\na wet day in London, you shall find a host of envious admirers.\n\nShould the worst come to the worst, you can defy obscurity by committing\na judiciously villainous murder. Perhaps Jack the Ripper had a passion\nfor publicity, and liked to see his name in the papers; until he grew\n_blase_ and retired upon his laurels.\n\nYes, it is an advertising age, and an advertising age is a sensational\nage. Religion itself--the staid, the demure--shares in the general\ntendency. She preaches in the style of the auction room, she beats drums\nand shakes tambourines in the streets, she affects criminals and\ndotes on vice, she bustles about the reformation of confirmed topers.\nBy-and-bye she will get up a mission to lunatics and idiots. She is\nnow a very \"forward\" person. Forward movements are the rage in all the\nchurches. But Methodism bears the palm, though Presbyterianism threatens\nto run it hard in the person of John McNeill. Hugh Price Hughes is a\nvery smart showman. When truth is stale he is ready with a bouncing lie,\nand has \"face\" enough to keep it up in five chapters. But the West-End\nMission is getting rather tame. The dukes and duchesses are not yet\nconverted. Money is spent like water and the aristocracy still go to\nHades. A new move is tried. The \"forward\" Methodists organise a Mission\nto Epsom, Jesus Christ goes to the Derby; that is, he goes by proxy,\nin the person of Mr. Nix. A van, a tent, and a big stock of pious\nliterature, with mackintoshes and umbrellas, form his equipment. He\nis accompanied by a band of workers. Their rules are to be up for\nprayer-meeting at seven in the morning, and \"never to look at any race,\nor jockey, or horse.\" This is a precaution against the Old Adam. It\nsaves the Mission from going over to the enemy on the field of battle.\n\nMr. Nix gives an account of his performance in the _Methodist Times_. He\nconverted a lot of people. So has Hugh Price Hughes. \"At one time,\" he\nsays, \"there were three Church of England clergymen and their wives and\nsome distinguished members of the aristocracy in the tent\"--probably\nout of the wet. Of course _they_ were not converted. But what a pity!\nA \"converted clergyman\" would have been a glorious catch, worth five\nthousand pounds at St. James's Hall. And fancy bagging a duke! It was\nenough to make Mr. Nix's mouth water. He must have felt some of the\nagony of Tantalus. He was up to the neck, so to speak, in lords and\nparsons, and could not grasp one. Dissenting ministers and their\nwives did not show up. Naturally. They would not go to such a naughty\nplace--except in a mission van. Mr. Nix has a keen eye for the Methodist\nbusiness. He has open and sly digs at the Church clergy. One of the\ntipsters said his father was a clergyman, but \"his religion was no good\nto him.\" He would give anything for the religion of \"the little chap\nthat stood on the stool.\" That was Mr. Nix.\n\nWe suspect the Epsom races will outlast Mr. Nix. There is more boast\nthan performance about Missions. Christianity is always converting\ndrunkards, profligates, prostitutes, and thieves; but somehow our social\nevils do not disappear. Even the drink bill runs up, despite all\nthe Gospel pledges. _Nix_ is the practical result of the efforts of\ngentlemen like Mr. Nix. They are on the wrong tack. They are sweeping\nback the tide with mops. The real reformatory agency is the spread of\neducation and refinement.\n\nYet the mission will go on. It is a good advertisement. Mr. Hughes gives\nit a special leading article. He cries up the Epsom mob as the \"most\nrepresentative gathering of Englishmen,\" and \"therefore a fair specimen\nof the mental and moral condition of the English people.\" This is stuff\nand nonsense, but it serves its purpose. Mr. Hughes wants to show that\nMissions are needed. He finds that \"the great majority of the people are\noutside the Christian Church,\" that \"this is still a heathen country.\"\nPerhaps so. But what a confession after all these centuries of\ngospel-grinding and Church predominance! There are fifty or sixty\nthousand churches and chapels, and as many sky-pilots. Six million\nchildren go to Sunday-school. The Bible is forced into the public\nday-schools. Copies are circulated by the million. Twenty millions a\nyear, at the least, is spent in inculcating Christianity. Yet England is\nstill \"a heathen country.\" Well, if this be the case, what is the use of\nMr. Nix? What is the use of Mr. Hughes? Greater preachers have gone\nbefore them and have failed. Is it not high time for Jesus to run the\njob himself? \"Come, Lord Jesus,\" as John says. Let him descend from the\nFather's right hand and take Mr. Nix's place at the next Derby. He might\neven convert the \"clergymen and their wives\" and the \"distinguished\nmembers of the aristocracy.\" Anyhow he should try. He will not be\ncrucified again. The worst that could happen is a charge of obstruction,\nand perhaps a fine of forty shillings. But surely he will not lay\nhimself open to such indignities. He should triumphantly assert his\ndeity. A few big miracles would strike Englishmen more than the Jews,\nwho were sated with the supernatural. He might stop the horses in mid\ncareer, fix the jockeys in their saddles, root the Epsom mob where they\nstood, and address them from the top of the grand stand. That would\nsettle them. They would all go to church next Sunday. Yes, Jesus must\ncome himself, or the case is hopeless. Missions to the people of this\n\"heathen country\" are like fleas on an elephant. What the ministers\nshould pray for is the second coming of Christ. But we guess it will be\na long time before they sing \"Lo, he comes, in clouds descending.\"\nBesides, it would be a bad job for _them_. Their occupation would be\ngone. A wholesale conversion would cut up the retail traders. On the\nwhole, we have no doubt the men of God prefer the good old plan. If\nJesus came he would take the bread out of their mouths. That would be\nshabby-after they had devoted themselves to the business. The very\npublicans demand compensation, and could the sky-pilots do less? But\nperhaps Jesus would send them all _home_. We should like to see them go.\nIt would give the world a chance.\n\n\n\n\nATHEIST MURDERERS. *\n\n     * January, 1894.\n\nAn Open Letter to the Bishop of Winchester.\n\nBishop,--You are a high and well-paid dignitary of the Church of\nEngland. You are therefore a State official, as much as a soldier or\na policeman; and, as such, you are amenable to public criticism. It is\npossible that you never heard of me before, but I am a member of the\nEnglish public, and as a citizen I help (very unwillingly) to support\nthe Church, and therefore to support _you_. My right to address you is\nthus indisputable. I make no apology or excuse for doing so; and, as for\nmy reason, it will appear in the course of this letter.\n\nI notice in the daily and weekly newspapers a paragraph which concerns\nyou--_and me_. The paragraph is exactly the same in all the papers I\nhave seen; it must therefore have emanated from, and been circulated\nby, one hand; and that hand I suspect is yours, particularly as\nit insinuates the necessity of supporting Christian Missions in\nEngland--that is, of subscribing to Church agencies over and above the\nnine or ten millions a year which your Establishment spends (or devours)\nin ministering to what you call \"the spiritual needs\" of the English\npeople.\n\nThe paragraph I refer to states that you have converted and confirmed\nan Atheist, and that this Atheist has been hung for the crime of murder;\nand it plainly hints that his crime was the natural result of his\nirreligious opinions.\n\nAs you make so much of this case, I presume that this murderer--who was\nnot good enough to live on earth, and whom you have sent to live for\never in heaven--is the only Atheist you have ever converted; so that in\nevery way the case is one of exceptional interest.\n\nAnd now, before I go any farther, let me tell you why the case concerns\nme as well as you. I am an Atheist, and a teacher of Atheism. I am\nthe President of the National Secular Society, which is the only open\norganisation of Freethinkers in England. My immediate predecessor in\nthis office was Charles Bradlaugh, of whom you _must_ have heard. Not to\nknow him would argue yourself unknown. My personality is not so famous\nas his, but my office is the same, and you will now understand why I\naddress you on the subject of your converted murderer.\n\nThe newspaper paragraph to which I have referred is brief and\ninadequate, but fuller particulars are given in your _Diocesan\nChronicle_, for a copy of which I am indebted to the kindness of\na gentleman who is technically a member of your flock. He is a\nFreethinker, but I do not believe you will convert him, and still less\nthat you will ever \"assist\" at his execution.\n\nThe murderer for whom you made the gallows the gateway to heaven was\ncalled George Mason. He was nineteen years of age. Serving in the\nmilitia, he was liable to severe discipline. His sergeant had him\nimprisoned for three days, and in revenge he shot the officer dead while\nat rifle practice. It is an obvious moral, which I wonder your lordship\ndoes not perceive, that it is dangerous to put deadly weapons in the\nhands of passionate boys. Your lordship's interest in the case seems to\nbe entirely _professional_.\n\nWhile this lad was simply a militiaman your lordship would not have\nregarded him as an object of solicitude. As a convicted murderer, he\nbecame profoundly interesting. No less than three clergymen took him\nin hand: the Rev. J. L. Ladbrooke, the Rev. James Baker, and yourself.\nThree to one are long odds, and it is no marvel that you conquered the\nboy. Still, it is unfortunate that we have only _your_ account of the\nconflict, for your profession is not famous for what I will politely\ncall _accuracy_. Herder remarked that \"Christian veracity\" deserved to\nrank with \"Punic faith.\" How many falsehoods has your Church circulated\nabout _great_ Freethinkers! Why should it hesitate, then, to tell\nuntruths about _little_ ones? A Wesleyan minister, the Rev. Hugh Price\nHughes, has published a long circumstantial story of a converted Atheist\nshoemaker, which is proved to be false in all its main features. It\nis far from certain, therefore, that your lordship's account of the\nconversion of George Mason is true. You and your two clerical colleagues\ncan say what you please; your evidence cannot be tested; and _such_\nevidence, especially when given by persons who are confederates in a\ncommon cause, is always open to suspicion.\n\nNevertheless I need not doubt that George Mason made an edifying end. It\nis the way of murderers. What I venture to doubt is your statement as to\nhis life. You write as follows:--\n\n\"His early life was lived in the east of London, his trade being that\nof a costermonger, and he was brought up by his father, a professed\natheist, who was in the habit of reading the Bible with this boy and a\ncompany of other freethinkers, verse by verse, and deliberately turning\nit into ridicule, by way of commentary. It is hard to imagine a more\ndeliberate training for the gallows than what his father gave him.\"\n\nLater on, you say the boy was \"insignificant, almost stunted to look\nat,\" and you add that \"his only opportunity was to learn how to be a\nchild of the Devil.\"\n\nNow I wish to observe, in the first place, that you have not said\n_enough_. You do not say whether George Mason's father is still living.\nI have not been able to hear of him myself. If he be still living, have\nyou taken the trouble to obtain _his_ version of the matter? And if not,\ndo you think it kind or just to speak of him in this manner? Nor do\nyou say what religion George Mason professed in the Militia, whether he\nattended \"divine service,\" and what was its influence upon him. You were\nin too great a hurry to capture your Atheist, and insult all who do not\nbelieve the dogmas of your Church.\n\nYou regard it as \"deliberate training for the gallows\" to let a boy\nlaugh at the Bible. Has it ever occurred to you to inquire how it is\nthat the Bible is so easy to ridicule? Have you ever reflected that what\nis laughed at is generally ridiculous? Are you not aware that the most\nrisible imp could hardly laugh at _all_ the contents of the Bible? Who\nlaughs at the saying, \"Blessed are the peacemakers\"? Who laughs at\nthe horrid massacres of the Old Testament? But who does _not_ laugh at\ncock-and-bull stories like that of Jonah and the whale? Your lordship\ndoes not discriminate. Very little thought would show you that some\nparts of the Bible _cannot_ be laughed at, that where it _can_ be\nlaughed at it is probably absurd, and that to laugh at an absurdity is\ncertainly no \"training for the gallows.\"\n\nYour lordship evidently wishes to convey the idea that Atheists are very\nlikely to become murderers, or _more_ likely than their Christian fellow\ncitizens. This I deny, and I ask for your evidence. All you adduce is\nthe case of this \"insignificant\" and \"stunted\" boy. Let us suppose for a\nmoment that your statement about him is entirely accurate. What does it\nprove? Simply this, that it is not impossible for an Atheist to commit\na murder. But who ever said it was? Who asserts that Atheists are\nabsolutely free from the passions and frailties of human nature? Has\nyour lordship never heard of a Christian murderer? Is it not a fact that\nJesus Christ himself could not select his apostles without including a\nvillain? \"Twelve of you have I chosen,\" he said, \"and one of you is a\nmurderer.\" Is not one in twelve a large percentage? Why, then, is the\nworld to be alarmed, and invited to subscribe to Christian Missions,\nbecause one Atheist out of all the thousands in England commits a murder\n--and that one an \"insignificant\" and \"stunted\" boy, apparently bred in\npoverty and hardship?\n\nMind you, I am not admitting that George Mason _was_ an Atheist, or\nthe _son_ of an Atheist. I say that has to be proved. I am taking\nyour lordship's account of the matter as true merely for the sake of\nargument.\n\nLet me draw your attention to some _facts_. So many of the clergy in\nyour own Church \"went wrong\" that you were compelled to obtain a special\nAct of Parliament to enable you to get rid of them. Is it not true,\nalso, that the greatest swindlers of this age have been extremely pious?\nWhat do you make of Messrs Hobbs and Wright? What do you think of\nJabez Balfour? Are not such scoundrels a thousand times worse than\na passionate boy like George Mason? Were not the \"Liberator\" victims\nfleeced and ruined by professed Christians? What have you to say about\nMr. Hastings, Captain Verney, and Mr. De Cobain, who were all convicted\nof bad crimes and expelled from Parliament? Have you ever heard of the\ntext, \"Physician heal thyself\"?\n\nHere is another fact. A few months ago an Irish clergyman, the Rev.\nGeorge Griffiths, deliberately shot his own mother for the sake of\nwhat cash he could find in her desk. He was tried, found guilty, and\nsentenced to be hung. Would you think me justified in saying that the\nRev. George Griffiths committed a murder because he was a Christian?\nWhy, then, do you pretend that George Mason committed a murder because\nhe or his father was an Atheist?\n\nLay your hand upon your heart, and answer this question honestly. Do you\nreally believe that an Atheist has a special proclivity to murder? What\nis there in Atheism to make men hate each other? When a man holds the\nhand of the woman he loves, or feels about his neck the little arms of\nhis child, do you suppose he is likely to injure either of them because\nhe is unable to accept your dogma about the mystery of this illimitable\nuniverse? Shall I hate my own boy because I disbelieve that Jesus Christ\nwas born without a father? Shall I keep him without food and clothes\nbecause I see no proof of a special providence? Will Shakespeare's\n_Hamlet_ poison my mind because I think it finer than the gospels? If\nI treat the Creation Story and the Deluge as legend and mythology, and\nsmile at the feats of Samson, shall I therefore commit a burglary? If\nI think that my neighbor's life in this world is _his all_, that death\nends his possibilities, do you really think I shall be the more likely\nto rob him of what I can never restore?\n\nI am at a loss to understand your lordship, and I invite you to explain\nyourself. At present I can only see in your account of George Mason, a\nvery common exhibition of Christian logic, and Christian temper. Your\nlordship's is not the charity that \"thinketh no evil.\" You ascribe\nwickedness to those who differ from you in opinion. I conceive it\npossible for men to differ from you in religion, and yet to equal you\nin morality. I conceive it even possible that some of them might surpass\nyou without a miracle.\n\n\n\n\nA RELIGION FOR EUNUCHS. *\n\n     * June, 1890.\n\nThis is a strong title, and it requires a justification. We have to\nplead that nothing else would serve our purpose. But is our purpose\na sound one? That will appear in the course of this article. Let the\nreader finish what we have to say before he forms a judgment.\n\nWe purpose to criticise the view of Christianity recently put forth\nby the greatest writer in Russia. Count Leo Tolstoi enjoys an European\nfame. He is one of the classics of modern fiction. His work in\nimaginative literature, as well as his work in religion, said the late\nMatthew Arnold, is \"more than sufficient to signalise him as one of\nthe most marking, interesting, and sympathy-inspiring men of our time.\"\nWhatever such a man writes deserves the closest attention. Not, indeed,\nthat this needs to be bespoken for him. He has the qualities that compel\nit. There is the stamp of power on all his productions. We pause at them\ninvoluntarily, as we turn to look at a physical king of men who passes\nus in the street.\n\nFor some years Count Tolstoi discontinued his work as a novelist. His\nmind became occupied with social and religious problems. He ceased to be\na man of the world and became a Christian; and his being a most sincere\nnature, endowed with a certain large simplicity which is characteristic\nof the Russian mind, he did not rest in ecclesiastical Christianity. He\nembraced the religion of Christ, and began working it out to legitimate\nissues. To him the Sermon on the Mount is divine teaching, not in a\nmetaphorical sense, but in its literal significance. Accordingly he\ntells the Christian world, in such volumes as _My Religion_ and _My\nConfession_, that it is all astray from the religion of Christ. He\npoints to what its Savior said, takes his words in their honest meaning,\nand brands as un-Christian the whole framework of Christian society,\nwith its armies, its police, its law courts, its wealth, and its\ninstitution of property. The Bishop of Peterborough and Count Tolstoi\nare at one in believing that if the Sermon on the Mount were carried out\nthe State would go to ruin; only the Bishop of Peterborough shrinks from\nthis, and jesuitically narrows the scope of Christ's teaching, while\nCount Tolstoi accepts it loyally and calls on Christians to square their\npractice with their profession.\n\nMirabeau said of Robespierre, \"He is in earnest, he will go far.\" This\nis what we felt with respect to Count Tolstoi. Sooner or later he was\ncertain to follow Jesus to the bitter end. After property comes the\ninstitution of marriage, upon which the teaching of Jesus may be\nfound in the gospels. Count Tolstoi now insists on this teaching being\npractised. He has written a novel, _The Kreutzer Sonata_, to show the\nevils, not only of marriage, but of all sexual relations. Since then he\nhas written a sober article to justify the sentiments of the hero, or\nthe protagonist, of that terrible story. It is no longer possible to\nsay that Pozdnischeff's ideas are those of a person in a drama. Count\nTolstoi accepts the full responsibility of them, and presses them still\nfurther. He is now the un-blenching apostle of real Christianity--not\nthe Christianity of the Churches, but the Christianity of Christ; and\nhis new evangel will alarm the growing army of \"advanced Christians,\"\nwho are always canting, in their sentimental way, the very phrase which\nhe develops in all its terrific meaning. To be a Christian, he tells\nthem, is to crucify the body, to kill the animal passions, to live the\npure life of the spirit, and, in short, to practise every austerity of\nasceticism.\n\nTolstoi did not jump to this conclusion. Writing on his novels, Mr. W.\nE. Henley called him \"the great optimist.\" The _Kreutzer Sonata_ is the\nwork of a profound pessimist. Concluding _What To Do_, Tolstoi wrote a\nnoble passage on the sacredness of motherhood. Now all that is changed.\nMotherhood must go too. It will take time, for the old Adam is strong\nin us. But go it must, and when we have all brought our bodies under, no\nmore children will be born. The race will expire, having perfected its\nimitation of Christ, and the animals that remain will hold the world\nin undisputed possession; unless, indeed, they catch the contagion, and\nwind up the whole terrestrial business.\n\nBefore we treat Tolstoi's evangel in detail we must remark that he does\nnot explain the \"primeval command\" of Jehovah to Adam and Eve--\"Be\nye fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth.\" This is very\ninconsistent with the gospel of absolute chastity. Jehovah says, \"Get as\nmany children as you can.\" Christ says, \"Get none at all.\" If it was the\nsame God who gave both orders he changed his mind completely, and having\nchanged it once he may change it again. In that case the Koran will\nsucceed the New Testament, and the _Imitation of Christ_ give place to\nthe _Arabian Nights_.\n\n_Revenons a nos moutons_. The _Kreutzer Sonata_ is a terrible story,\nbut like all novels with a purpose, it is inartistic. Othello kills\nDesdemona without moralising on the sinfulness of marriage, and\nPozdnischeff stabs his wife from sheer jealousy. All the preaching is by\nthe way. It might be cut out without affecting the work, and that is its\ncondemnation. When the preacher steps forward the artist retires. And\nas we are dealing with Tolstoi the preacher we shall go straight to his\narticle in the _Universal Review_.\n\nTolstoi admits that what he now teaches is incompatible with what he\ntaught before. When writing the _Kreutzer Sonata_, he says: \"I had not\nthe faintest presentiment that the train of thought I had started would\nlead me whither it did. I was terrified by my own conclusion, and was at\nfirst disposed to reject it; but it was impossible not to hearken to the\nvoice of my reason and my conscience.\" This is the language of earnest\nsincerity.\n\nThe conclusion is this--\"Even to contract marriage is, from a Christian\npoint of view, not a progress but a fall. Love and all the states that\naccompany and follow it, however we may try in prose and verse to prove\nthe contrary, never do and never can facilitate the attainment of an aim\nworthy of men, but always make it more difficult.\"\n\nThis is sufficiently dogmatic. Chapman thought otherwise.\n\n                    Without love\n     All beauties bred in women are in vain,\n     All virtues born in men lie buried;\n     For love informs them as the sun doth colors:\n     And as the sun, reflecting his warm beams\n     Against the earth, begets all fruits and flowers,\n     So love, fair shining in the inward man,\n     Brings forth in him the honorable fruits\n     Of valor, wit, virtue, and haughty thoughts,\n     Brave resolution and divine discourse.\n\nThus the great Elizabethan. Now for the laureate of the Victorian age.\n\n     For indeed I knew Of no more subtle master under heaven\n     Than is the maiden passion for a maid,\n     Not only to keep down the base in man,\n     But teach high thought, and amiable words\n     And courtliness, and the desire of fame,\n     And love of truth, and all that makes a man.\n\nChapman's strain is higher than Tennyson's, but they harmonise.\nTolstoi's is a harsher note. He vilifies the flesh to exalt the spirit,\nas though the two never mingled. He would abolish the springs of life to\npurify its stream! He bids us see in our passions \"foes to be conquered\nrather than friends to be encouraged.\" Why not try to establish a just\nharmony between them? Is there no medium? Must the passions be kings or\nslaves, in prison or on the throne? \"It is thought an injury to reason,\"\nwrote Diderot, \"to say a word in favor of her rivals; yet it is only the\npassions, and strong passions, that can lift the soul to great things;\nwithout them there is nothing sublime, whether in conduct or in\nproductions--art becomes childish and virtue trivial.\"\n\nBut let us hear Tolstoi simply as a follower of Christ. We cannot do\nbetter than reproduce some of his sentences _in extenso_.\n\n\"Christ not only never instituted marriage, but, if we search for formal\nprecept on the subject, we find that he rather disapproved it than\notherwise. ('And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or\nsisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for my\nname's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting\nlife.' Matthew xix. 29, Mark z. 29, 30, Luke xviii. 29,30). He only\nimpressed upon married and unmarried alike the necessity of striving\nafter perfection, which includes chastity in marriage and out of it.\"\n\n\"There is not and cannot be such an institution as Christian\nmarriage.... This is what was always taught and believed by true\nChristians of the first and following centuries.... In the eyes of a\nChristian, sexual relations in marriage not only do not constitute\na lawful, right, and happy state, as our society and our churches\nmaintain, but, on the contrary, are always a fall, a weakness, a sin.\"\n\n\"Such a thing as Christian marriage never was and never could be. Christ\ndid not marry, nor did he establish marriage; neither did his disciples\nmarry.\"\n\n\"A Christian, I say, cannot view sexual intercourse otherwise than as\na deviation from the doctrine of Christ--as a sin. This is clearly laid\ndown in Matt. v. 28, and the ceremony called Christian marriage does not\nalter its character one jot. A Christian will never, therefore, desire\nmarriage, but will always avoid it.\"\n\n\"In the Gospel it is laid down so clearly as to make it impossible to\nexplain it away, that he who is already married when he discovers and\naccepts the truth, must abide with her with whom he has been living,\ni.e., must not change his wife, and must live more chastely than before\n(Matt. v. 32, xix. 8-12), that he who is single should remain unmarried\nand continue to live chastely (Matt. xix. 10, 12), and that both the one\nand the other, in their yearning and striving after perfect chastity,\nare guilty of sin if they look on a woman as an object of pleasure\n(Matt. v. 28, 29).\"\n\nPozdnischeff, at the close of the _Kreutzer Sonata_, clinches all this\nby saying--\"People should understand the true significance of the words\nof St. Matthew as to looking upon a woman with the eye of desire; for\nthe words apply to woman in her sisterly character--not only to another\nman's wife, but also, and above all, to one's own.\"\n\nIf this view of marriage prevailed, and perfect chastity obtained,\nthe human race would come to an end. Tolstoi says he cannot help that.\nCarnal love perpetuates the race, and spiritual love will extinguish\nit. But what if it does? It is a familiar religious dogma that the world\nwill have an end, and science tells us that the sun is losing its heat,\nthe result of which must in time be the extinction of the human race.\n\nThe great Russian does not shrink from the logic of Christ's teaching.\nHe follows Christ as St Paul did; as St. Peter did, who forsook his\nwife; as the Fathers did in crying up virginity and running down\nmarriage; as the monks and nuns did who severed themselves from the\nworld and the flesh, though they often fell into the hands of the\nDevil. Still there is another step for Count Tolstoi to take. He has not\npressed one important saying of Christ, and it is this--\n\n\"For there are some eunuchs, which were born so from their mother's\nwomb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and\nthere be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of\nheaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it\" (Matt.\nxix. 12).\n\nThe great Origen followed this advice and emasculated himself. Nor was\nhe alone in the practice. All the disciples of his contemporary, Valens\nof Barathis, made themselves eunuchs. Mantegazza considers them the\nspiritual fathers of the Skopskis, a Russian sect dating from the\neleventh century. They have been persecuted, but they number nearly six\nthousand, and regard themselves as the real Christians, the only true\nfollowers of Christ. They castrate themselves, and sometimes amputate\nthe genitals entirely; the women even mutilate their breasts as a mark\nof their sex.\n\nWill Count Tolstoi take the final step? It seems logically necessary\neven without the text on eunuchs, for the only certain way to avoid\nsexual intercourse is to make it impossible. In any case we are very\nmuch obliged to him for holding up the _real_ Christianity, as far as he\nsees it, to the purblind and hypocritical mob of professed Christians.\nIt will fortify Freethinkers in their scepticism, and warn the healthy\nmanhood and womanhood of Europe against this oriental asceticism which\npretends to be a divine message to the robust Occident. When Tolstoi\ngoes the one step farther, and embraces the teaching of Jesus in its\nentirety, he will be the most powerful enemy of Christianity in the\nworld. By demonstrating it to be a religion for eunuchs he will array\nagainst it the deepest instincts of mankind.\n\n\n\n\nROSE-WATER RELIGION. *\n\n     * April, 1894.\n\nMost of our readers will recollect the controversy that was carried on,\nmore than twelve months ago, in the columns of the _Daily Chronicle_.\nMr. Robert Buchanan had published his new poem, \"The Wandering Jew,\" in\nwhich Jesus Christ was depicted as a forlorn vagrant, sick of the evil\nand infamy wrought in his name, and for which he was historically though\nnot intentionally responsible. This poem was reviewed by Mr. Richard\nLe Gallienne, a younger poet, who is also a professional critic in\nthe _Star_, where his weekly _causerie_ on books and their writers is\nprinted over the signature of \"Logroller.\" Mr. Le Gallienne took Mr.\nBuchanan to task for his hostility to \"the Christianity of Christ,\" the\nnature of which was not defined nor even made intelligible. Mr. Buchanan\nreplied with his usual impetuosity, declining to have anything to do\nwith Christianity except in the way of opposition, and laughing at the\nsentimental dilution which his young friend was attempting to pass off\nas the original, unadulterated article. Mr. Le Gallienne retorted\nwith youthful self-confidence that Mr. Buchanan did not understand\nChristianity. Other writers then joined in the fray, and the result was\nthe famous \"Is Christianity Played Out?\" discussion in the _Chronicle_.\nIt was kept going for a week or two, until parliament met and Jesus\nChrist had to make way for William Ewart Gladstone.\n\nMr. Le Gallienne hinted that he was preparing a kind of manifesto on the\nsubject of Christianity. The world was to be informed at length as to\nthe \"essential\" nature of that religion. Divines and Freethinkers had\nalike misunderstood and misrepresented it. After a lapse of nearly two\nthousand years the \"straight tip,\" if we may so express it, was to come\nfrom \"Logroller.\" He would soon speak and set the weary world at rest\nwith the triumphant proclamation of the real, imperishable religion of\nJesus Christ. Presently it was announced, in judicious puffs, that the\nmanifesto was growing under Mr. Le Gallienne's hands. It would take the\nform of a book, to be entitled _The Religion of a Literary Man_. The\ntitle had little relation to the Galilean carpenter or his fishing\ndisciples. Nor was it in any sense happy. It smacked too much of the\n\"shop.\" Sir Thomas Browne, it is true, wrote a \"Religio Medici,\" and\ngave a physician's view of religion; but he was a man of rare genius as\nwell as quaintness, and allowance was to be made for his idiosyncrasy.\nBesides, there is a certain speciality in a doctor's way of looking at\nreligion, if he compares his knowledge with his faith. But what is the\nspeciality of a literary man on this particular subject? Other trades\nand professions might as well follow suit, and give us \"The Religion\nof a Porkbutcher,\" or \"The Faith of a Farmer,\" or \"The Creed of a\nConstable.\" Even the \"Belief of a Barman\" is not beyond the scope of a\nrational probability.\n\nMr. Le Gallienne's long-promised evangel \"burst upon the town\" a month\nago. The \"Religio Scriptoris\"--which a puzzler at Latin might render as\n\"The Religion of a Scribbler\"--made a dainty appearance. The title-page\nwas in two colors, with a pretty arabesque border. The type throughout\nwas neatly leaded, with a column for summaries in the old fashion, and a\nwide margin of imitation hand-made paper. The book was pretty, like the\nwriting, and opposite the title-page was a pretty verse:--\n\n     'The old gods pass'--the cry goes round,\n     'Lo! how their temples strew the ground';\n     Nor mark we where, on new-fledged wings,\n     Faith, like the phoenix, soars and sings.\n\nYes, it is _all_ pretty. There is an air of dilettanteism about the\nwhole production. It will probably be grateful to the sentimentalists\nwho, despite their scepticism, still cling to the name of Christian; but\nwe imagine it will rather irritate than satisfy other readers of more\nstrenuous and scrupulous intelligence.\n\nThe book is dedicated to \"A. E. Fletcher, Esq.,\" editor of the _Daily\nChronicle_, who may well be proud (not of this dedication, but) of the\nhigh position to which he has raised that organ of Radical principles.\nMr. Le Gallienne refers to the old controversy in the _Chronicle_\nas \"raising an important question--to me the most important of\nquestions--as to whether Christianity was really so obsolete to-day as\nits opponents glibly assume.\" \"I could not stand by,\" he continues, \"and\nsee the sublime figure of Christ vulgarised to make an Adelphi holiday.\"\nFor this reason, he modestly says, he \"ventured to play David to Mr.\nBuchanan's Philistine.\" Mr. Fletcher allowed him a battlefield and\n\"thence sprung [he means _sprang_] the following pages.\" Thus much for\nthe origin of the work, and now for its character. \"I have condensed in\nits pages,\" the writer says, \"much religious experience, and long\nand ardent thought on spiritual matters.\" No doubt he believes this\nstatement, but is it true? Is not the writer too young to have had \"much\nexperience\"? and where are the traces of the \"long and ardent thought\"?\nMr. Le Gallienne might reply that his thought _has_ been long and\nardent, whatever the value of the result; but, in that case, he is not\ncut out for a thinker; and, indeed, he seems aware of the fact, for he\noften prints \"thinker\" in inverted commas to show his disdain of the\narticle. His \"one cure\" for \"modern doubt\" is to \"think less and feel\nmore,\" and some may be tempted to remark that he has certainly followed\nthe first part of the prescription.\n\nMr. Le Gallienne is a long time in coming to \"the sublime figure of\nChrist.\" He has a considerable ground to cover before he undertakes the\ncleaning and painting of the old idol. First of all, he has to establish\nhis native superiority over the common herd. He divides the world into\n\"natural spiritualists and materialists.\" The first have a Spiritual\nSense (capitals, please), while the second have not; and \"it is obvious\nthat the large majority of mankind belong to the latter class.\" Mr. Le\nGallienne, of course, belongs to the former. He is a member of Nature's\n(or God's) aristocracy. It is for them that he writes, although on his\nown supposition the task is superfluous. The common herd of materialists\nare warned against wasting their time in reading him--which also\nis somewhat superfluous. The fault of materialists--or rather their\nmisfortune, for they are born that way--is that they are such sticklers\nfor facts, and have \"no conception of aught they cannot touch and\nhandle, eat, or see through a microscope.\" Not, indeed, that Mr. Le\nGallienne objects to eating, for instance; he speaks of it with wet\nlips, and looks down upon the Vegetarian as a person whose \"spiritual\ninsight\" is not \"mercifully intermittent,\" especially at meal times. But\nbarring meal times, and other fleshly occasions when the spiritualists\njoin the materialists, the former habitually see facts as \"transitory\nsymbols\" of \"transfiguring mysteries,\" so that the whole world (and\nperhaps the moon) is \"palpitating with occult significance.\"\n\nFor instance. A materialist eats rook-pie, and cares for nothing else\nbut a sound digestion. The spiritualist also eats rook-pie, but after\nthe repast he will sentimentalise over dead rooks, without losing his\nbelief in an all-merciful Providence. He will assure you, indeed, and\ntry to convince you, that the shooting of rooks and the pulling off\ntheir heads to prevent the rook-pie from tasting bitter, is simply\none of the \"terrible and beautiful mysteries\" which make the world\nso interesting--especially to gentlemen of comprehensive natures, who\ncombine a taste for rook-pie with a taste for optimistic theology.\n\nWhen we come to test Mr. Le Gallienne's conception of mystery, we find\nit to be nothing but muddle. The whole mystery of life, he says, may be\nfound in a curve: as thus, Why isn't it straight?\n\n\"Color in itself is a mystery, and are there not trance-like moments\nwhen suddenly we ask ourselves, why a _colored_ world, why a _blue_ sky,\nand _green_ grass, why not _vice versa_, or why any color at all?\"\n\nMr. Le Gallienne is evidently prepared to stand aghast at the fact that\ntwice two make four. Why _always_ four? Why not three to-day and seven\nto-morrow? Yea, and echo answers, Why?\n\nHere is another illustration of \"mystery\"--\n\n\"Science can tell us that oxygen and hydrogen will unite under certain\nconditions to produce water, but it cannot tell us why they do so; the\nmystery of their affinity is as dark as ever.\"\n\nMr. Le Gallienne has a whole chapter on the Relative Spirit, yet his\n\"long and ardent thought\" does not enable him to see that he is\nhimself a slave of metaphysics. All this \"mystery\" is nothing but the\n\"meat-roasting power of the meat-jack.\" He question of _why_ oxygen and\nhydrogen form water is a prompting of anthropomorphism. Intellectually,\nit is simply childish. It could only be put by one who has _not_ grasped\nthe great doctrine of the Relativity of Knowledge. Man can no more get\nbeyond his own knowledge--which is and ever must be finite--than he can\nget outside himself, or run away from his own shadow.\n\n\"The sacred mystery of motherhood,\" of which Mr. Le Gallienne speaks,\nis a pretty expression. It may pass in the realm of poetry, with the\n\"everlasting hills\" and the \"eternal sea,\" which are but transient\nphenomena in the infinite existence of the universe. The \"mystery\" of\nhuman motherhood is no greater than the \"mystery\" of any other form of\nreproduction, while its \"sacredness\" depends on circumstances; the term,\nin short, being a compendium of a great variety of personal and social\nfeelings, which may or may not be present in any particular case. What\nbecomes of the \"sacred mystery of motherhood\" when a poor servant girl\nbrings her child into the world unaided, and casts it into the Thames?\nWhat becomes of it when violation takes the place of seduction, and a\nwoman bears a child to a man she loathes and hates?\n\n\"Mystery,\" like other words we inherit from the theological and\nmetaphysical stages, is only fit for use in poetry; it is out of place\nin science or philosophy; and we advise Mr. Le Gallienne to get a\ncomprehension of this truth before he takes fresh excursions in the\n\"realm of long and ardent thought.\" The subjective ideas of poetry\ncease to be admirable and stimulating when they are projected into the\nexternal world, and become our masters instead of our servants.\n\nMr. Le Gallienne follows the beaten track of theology in talking about\n\"mysteries,\" which are only subterfuges to cover the retreat of a\nnonplussed debater, or a warren for the fugitive game of the hounds\nof reason. He also follows the beaten track in arguing--or rather\nassuming--that the elect spiritualists have a \"sense\" which is lacking\nin the reprobate materialists. There is nothing like a good lumping\nassumption for begging the question at issue. It settles the discussion\nbefore it opens, and saves a world of trouble. But even an assumption\nmay be looked in the face; nay, it is best looked in the face when you\nsuspect it of being an imposture.\n\nAccording to Mr. Le Gallienne, the religious sense--or, as he also\nwrites it, the SPIRITUAL SENSE, with capital letters--is not after all\na special faculty, but a special compound, or interaction, of common\nfaculties. He does, indeed, treat these common faculties as\n\"tribautaries\" of the Spiritual Sense; but it is very evident that the\ntributaries make the stream, which is merely a name without them. First,\nthere is the Sense of Wonder, which is nothing but the positive side of\nignorance; second, the Sense of Beauty, which \"is not necessarily a\nreligious sense,\" but may be pressed into its service; third, the Sense\nof Pity, which really originates, as we conceive, in parental affection,\nand has even been noticed in rats as well as in religionists; fourth,\nthe Sense of Humor, which is a peculiarly \"candid\" friend of religion,\nso that Mr. Le Gallienne is obliged to give its devotees an impressive\nwarning against running into Ill-nature and Sacrilege; fifth, the Sense\nof Gratitude, which in religion, so far as we can see, appears to\nconsist in a lively sense of favors to come, through the medium of\nprayer, to which thanksgiving is only a judicious preliminary, like the\ncompliments and flatteries that are addressed to an oriental despot by\nhis humble but calculating petitioners.\n\nNow all these senses are perfectly natural. Every one of them is found\nin the lower animals as well as in man. How then can there be anything\nsupernatural, supersensible, or \"spiritual,\", in their combination? Is\nit not evident that Religion works, like everything else, upon common\nmaterials? Chiefly, indeed, upon the unchastened imagination of\ncredulous ignorance. We may prove this from Mr. Le Gallienne's own\ntestimony.\n\n\"Are there not impressions borne in upon the soul of man as he stands\na spectator of the universe which religion alone attempts to formulate?\nCertain impressions are expressed by the sciences and the arts. 'How\nwonderful!'--exclaims man, and that is the dawn of science; 'How\nbeautiful!'--and that is the dawn of art. But there is a still higher, a\nmore solemn, impression borne in upon him, and, falling upon his knees,\nhe cries, 'How holy!' That is the dawn of religion.\"\n\nMr. Le Gallienne does not see that this is all imagination. \"The heavens\ndeclare the glory of God,\" exclaims the Psalmist. On the other hand,\na great French Atheist exclaimed, \"The heavens declare the glory of\nCopernicus, Kepler, and Newton.\"\n\nMr. Le Gallienne does not see, either, that man did not exclaim, \"How\nholy!\" when he first fell upon his knees. His feeling was rather, \"How\nterrible!\" The sense of holiness is a social product--a high sublimation\nof morality. Man had to possess it himself, and see it highly\nexemplified in picked specimens of his kind, before he bestowed it upon\nhis gods. Deities do not anticipate, they follow, the course of human\nevolution.\n\nMr. Le Gallienne is an Optimist. He is young and prosperous, and,\njudging from his poetry, happily married. He is therefore satisfied that\nall is for the best--if properly understood; just as when an alderman\nhas dined, all the world is happy.\n\nThere are such people, however, as Pessimists, and Mr. Le Gallienne\nhates them. Schopenhauer, for instance, he rails at as a \"small\nphilosopher.\" whose ideas were only the \"formulation of his own special\ndisease, the expression of his own ineffably petty and uncomfortable\ndisposition.\" At which one can only stare, as at a mannikin attacking a\ncolossus. Spinoza too can be treated jauntily if he does not fall into\nline with Mr. Le Gallienne. George Meredith is treated with abundant\nrespect, but he is wronged by being enrolled as a facile optimist, and\n\"the strongest of the apostles of faith.\" He is certainly nothing of the\nkind, in Mr. Le Gallienne's sense of the words. He has faith in reason\nand humanity, but this is a very different thing from faith in the\nidols--even the greatest idol--of the Pantheon.\n\n\"There is too much pain in the world,\" said Charles Darwin, who knew\nwhat he was talking about, and always expressed himself with moderation.\nIn the moral world, pain becomes evil; and the problem of evil has ever\nbeen the crux of Theism. It cannot be solved on Theistic grounds, and\naccordingly it has to be explained away. Pain, we are told, is the great\nagent in our development; in the ethical sphere, it is the \"purifying\nfire,\" which purges the gold in us from its dross. All of which sounds\nvery pretty in a lecture, and looks very pretty in a book; but is apt to\nexcite disgust when a man is suffering from incurable cancer, or utter\ndestitution in the midst of plenty; or when a mother stands over the\ncorpse of her child, mangled in some terrible accident, or burnt to a\ncinder in a fatal fire.\n\nCertainly, pain subserves a partial purpose. It is sometimes a warning,\nthough the warning is often too late. But its function is immensely\noverrated by Mr. Le Gallienne and other religionists. It is all very\nwell to talk about the \"crucible,\" but half the people who go into it\nare reduced to ashes. Mr. Le Gallienne will not accept Spinoza's view\nthat \"pain is an unmistakable evil; joy the vitalising, fructifying\npower.\" But the great mystic, William Blake, said the same thing in,\n\"Joys impregnate, sorrows bring forth.\" George Meredith has expressed\nthe same view in saying that \"Adversity tests, it does not nourish\nus.\" Even the struggle for existence does not add any strength to the\nsurvivors. It sometimes cripples them. By eliminating the unfit--that\nis, the weak--it raises the average capacity. But what a method for\nInfinite Wisdom and Infinite Goodness! There was more sense, and less\ncruelty, in the ancient method of infanticide.\n\nMr. Le Gallienne seems to feel that his theory of pain is too fantastic,\nso he falls back on \"mystery.\" \"We can form no possible conception,\"\nhe says, \"of the processes of God.\" Why then does he talk about them\nso consumedly? Ignorance is a good reason for silence, but none for\ngarrulity.\n\nWe must be \"humble,\" says Mr. Le Gallienne, and recognise that we\nonly exist \"to the praise and glory of God.\" We are his servants and\nsoldiers, and the pay is life!--\"Had he willed it, this glorious gift\nhad never been ours. We might have still slept on unsentient,\nunorganised, in the trodden dust.\" Very likely; but who could lose what\nhe never possessed? It is a small misfortune that can never be realised.\n\nMr. Le Gallienne leaps the final difficulty by exclaiming that \"Man has\nno rights in regard to God.\" He shakes hands with St. Paul, who asserts\nthe potter's power over the clay. Yes, but man is not clay. He lives and\nfeels. He has rights, even against God. The parent is responsible for\nhis child, the creator for his creature. The opposite doctrine is fit\nfor cowards and slaves. It comes down to us from the old days, when\nfathers had the power of life and death over their children; it dies out\nas we learn that the first claim is the child's, and the first duty the\nparent's.\n\nMr. Le Gallienne's god is the old celestial despot of theology in a new\ncostume. On the question of a future life, however, we are pleased to\nfind a vein of heterodoxy and common sense. Mr. Le Gallienne asks, with\nrespect to the \"hereafter,\" whether we \"really care about it so much\nas we imagine.\" We talk about meeting our old friends in heaven, for\ninstance, but do we not \"meet them again already on earth--in the new\nones\"! It is said that if fine, cultivated personalities do not survive\ndeath, they are wasted, and have existed in vain. Mr. Le Gallienne's\nreply to this objection is clear, sufficient, and well expressed:--\n\n\"But how so? Have they not been in full operation for a lifetime? 'Tis\na pity truly that the old fiddle should be broken at last; but then\nfor how many years has it not been discoursing most excellent music? We\nnaturally lament when an old piece of china is some sure day dashed to\npieces; but then for how long a time has it been delighting and refining\nthose, maybe long dead, who have looked upon it.--If there were no\npossibility of more such fiddles, more such china, their loss would be\nan infinitely more serious matter; but on this the sad-glad old Persian\nadmonishes us:--\n\n     .... fear not lest Existence, closing your\n     Account and mine, should know the like no more;\n     The Eternal Saki from the bowl has pour'd\n     Millions of Bubbles like us, and shall pour.\n\nNature ruthlessly tears up her replicas age after age, but she is slow\nto destroy the plates. Her lovely forms are all safely housed in her\nmemory, and beauty and goodness sleep secure in her heart, in spite of\nall the arrows of death.\"\n\nWithout saving what they are, or which of them he considers at all\nconvincing, Mr. Le Gallienne observes that the arguments as to a future\nlife are \"probably stronger on the side of belief\"--which is rather a\ncurious expression. But, whichever theory be true, it \"does not really\nmuch matter.\" Very likely. But how does this fit in with the teaching of\nChrist? If he and his apostles did not believe in the \"hereafter,\" what\n_did_ they believe in? \"Great is your reward in heaven,\" and similar\nsentences, lose all meaning without the doctrine of a future life, about\nwhich the early Christians were intensely enthusiastic. It was not in\n_this_ world, as Gibbon remarks, that they wished to be happy or useful.\n\nMr. Le Gallienne argues that Christ taught in parables. He promised\nheaven, and threatened hell, but he spoke in a Pickwickian sense.\nHowever he used such phrases, it is \"certain\" that the evangelists \"have\ndistorted their importance out of all proportion to the rest of his\nteaching.\" By \"certain\" we are not to assume that Mr. Le Gallienne has\naccess to occult sources of information. We are only to infer that he\ndeals with the gospels arbitrarily; accepting them, or rejecting them,\nas they accord or disagree with his preconceptions. Indeed, this is what\n\"essential Christianity\" must always be. What each picker and chooser\nlikes is \"essential.\" What he does not like is unessential, if not a\npositive misrepresentation.\n\nShort and easy is Mr. Le Gallienne's criterion for deciding when Christ\nis literal and when parabolical. \"It is only Christ's moral precepts\nthat are to be taken literally\"--\"all the rest is parable.\" What a pity\nit is that the Prophet of Nazareth did not give us a clear hint to this\neffect! The theory is one of admirable simplicity. Yet, for all that\ndemure look of his, Mr. Le Gallienne is not so admirably simple as\nto work it out in practice. Accepting the moral precepts of Christ\nliterally, a Christian should hate his father and mother, take no\nthought tor the morrow, live in poverty to obtain the kingdom of heaven,\nand turn his left cheek to everyone who takes the liberty of striking\nhim on the right. Mr. Le Gallienne does not ask us to do these things;\nhe does not say he performs them himself, He would probably say, if\npressed, that allowance should be made for oriental ways of speaking.\nBut, in that case, what becomes of the \"literal\" method of reading the\n\"moral precepts\" of Christ?\n\nMr. Le Gallienne, who despises \"thinkers,\" is all at sea in his chapter\non Essential Christianity. He does not know his own mind. He declares\nthat Christ \"combined\" in his own person and teaching \"the intense\nspirituality of the Hebrew, the impassioned self-annihilation of the\nHindoo, the joyous naturalism of the Greek.\" Yet he also remarks that\nthere is something beautiful in \"such presences as Pan, Aphrodite, and\nApollo,\" which we do not find in Christianity; though he is careful to\nadd that there is not \"actually any strife between them and the sadder\nfigure of the Galilean.\" \"All the gods of all the creeds,\" he says,\n\"supplement or corroborate each other.\" Perhaps so; but what becomes\nof that \"masterful synthesis,\" in which Christ gathered up the \"joyous\nnaturalism of the Greek,\" no less than other ancient characteristics? It\nis well to have a good memory (at least) when you are setting the world\nto rights.\n\nChristianity has been historically a failure. Mr. Le Gallienne more than\nadmits the fact; he emphasises it, and tries to explain it. In the first\nplace, he says the priests have been too many for Christ; they got hold\nof Christianity, and turned it into the channel of their interests. In\nthe next place, the world was not ready for \"essential\" Christianity; an\nargument in flat contradiction to the doctrine of \"preparation,\" which\nhas placed so important a part in Christian apologetics ever since the\ntime of Eusebius. In the third place, \"essential\" Christianity is an\nidealism, and \"a throng of idealists is an impossibility.\" The horde of\nearthly-minded people have simply trodden upon the precious pearls of\nChrist's teaching. It is not true that the world has tried the Gospel\nof Christ and found it wanting; the world has never tried it at all, and\n\"in this nineteenth century of the so-called Christian era, it has yet\nto begin.\"\n\nSupposing all this to be true, what does it prove? On the theory\nthat Christ was God, or sent by God, it proves either that Providence\ninterfered too soon, or that it is incapable of making any real\nimpression upon the stubborn inhabitants of this planet; either\nalternative being a reflection on the wisdom or the power of the deity.\nOn the theory that Christ was only a man, it proves that he taught an\nimpossible gospel. After all these centuries it is still contested and\nstill to be explained. Would it not, after all, be better to put aside\nthis source of confusion and quarreling, and to rely upon reason and\nthe common sentiments of humanity? Mr. Le Gallienne admits that in some\nrespects \"such a book as Whitman's _Leaves of Grass_ is more helpful\nthan _The New Testament_--for it includes more.\" Why then all\nthis chatter about Christ? Can we ever be united on a question of\npersonality? Is it not absurd, and worse than absurd, to thrust this\nobject of contention into the arena where the forces of light should be\nfighting, like one man, the strong and disciplined forces of darkness?\n\nAll this talk about \"the sublime figure of Christ\" is a reminiscence\nof his faded deity. We do not indulge in heated discussions as to the\npersonality of any other _man_. We speak of other \"sublime\" figures, but\nthe expression is one of individual reverence. We do not say that those\nwho do not share our opinion of Buddha, Socrates, Mohammed, Bruno,\nCromwell, Danton, or even Plato or Shakespeare, are grovelling\nmaterialists and candidates for perdition. No, the chatter about Christ\nis only explicable on the ground that he was, and still is by millions,\nworshipped as a god. The glamor of the deity lingers round the form of\nthe man.\n\nIt is impossible for persons of any logical trenchancy to remain in\nthis stage. Francis Newman gave up orthodox Christianity, and also the\nequivocations of Unitarianism, but he clung to \"the moral perfection of\nChrist.\" In the course of time, however, the scales fell from his eyes.\nHe had been blinded by a false sentiment. Letting his mind play freely\nupon the \"sublime figure\" of the Prophet of Nazareth, he at length\nperceived that it had its defects. No mortal is endowed with perfection.\nSuch monsters do not exist. Indeed, the teaching of Christ is as\ndefective as his personality, Its perfection and sufficiency can only be\nmaintained by those who never mean to incur the perils of reducing it to\npractice. Who really tries to carry out the Christianity of Christ? Only\none man in Europe that we know of, and his name is Count Tolstoi; but\nhe is saved from the worst consequences of his \"idealism\" by the more\npractical wisdom of his wife, who will not see him, any more than\nherself and her children, reduced to godly beggary.\n\nMr. Le Gallienne seems to us to belong to the sentimentalists, though\nwe hope he will grow out of their category. He appears to dread accurate\nthinking, and to imagine that knowledge destroys the charm of nature.\n\"Which,\" he asks, \"comes nearest to the truth about love--poor\nLombroso's talk about pistil and stamen, or one of Shakespeare's\nsonnets?\" The root, he says, is no explanation of the flower.\n\nThis may be fine, but it is fine nonsense. Lombroso and Shakespeare are\nboth right. The physician does not contradict the poet. And if the root\nis no explanation of the flower, what will happen if you are careless\nabout the root and the soil in which it is planted? Does a gardener act\nin that way? Is it not the horticulture of Fleet-street sentimentalists?\n\nMr. Le Gallienne is great on what he calls the \"root\" fallacy. Wishing\nto keep the \"irreligious instinct\" in mystery, or at least obscurity, he\nobjects to anthropological \"explanations.\" He cannot tolerate talk about\nancestor-worship, and other such \"rude beginnings of religion,\" although\nit comes from the lips of his intellectual superiors, such as Tylor,\nLubbock, and Spencer. Even if they are right, he falls back upon his old\nexclamation, \"What does it matter?\" If the flower began as a root, he\nsays, that is no argument against \"the reality of the flower.\" But this\nis a shifting of ground. The reality of the flower, the reality of the\n\"religious instinct,\" is not in dispute. The question is, What is its\nexplanation? No one denies that man idealises and reveres. The question\nis, How did he come to let these faculties play upon ghosts and gods?\nAnd the explanation is to be found in his past. It cannot possibly be\nfound in his present, unless we take him as a savage, in which case he\nis an embodiment of the past of our own ancestors, from whom we derive\nevery vestige of what we call our \"religion.\"\n\nMan's nature, like his destiny, is involved in his origin. However he\nmay be developed, he will never be more than \"the paragon of animals.\"\nAnd it is the recognition of this unchangeable truth which makes all the\ndifference between the evolutionist, who labors for rational progress,\nand the sentimentalist, who fritters away his energies in cherishing the\ndelusions of faith.","title":"Flowers of Freethought (Second Series)","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":98929}